De Guyer v. Banning’s Empirical Analysis
167 U.S. 723 · 1897
Citation profile
13 federal appellate · 10 district · 25 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 59 later decisions (6 by the Supreme Court) — most recently August 1988 · most notably Borax Consolidated, Ltd. v. Los Angeles (1935), State of Louisiana v. State of Mississippi (1906)
13 federal appellate · 10 district · 25 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on Knight v. United Land Ass'n · Ex Parte Charles Sibbald v. The United States · Beard v. Federy · Russell v. Maxwell Land Grant Co. · More v. Steinbach
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 59 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““As against the government this record, so long as it remains unvacated, is conclusive. And it is equally conclusive against parties claiming under the government by title subsequent. * * * The term ‘third persons,’ as there used, does not embrace all persons other than the United States and the claimants, but only those who hold superior titles, such as will enable them to resist successfully any action of the government in disposing of the property.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““In our opinion, if those who obtained the decree of confirmation objected to the survey as not being in conformity with that decree, their objection should have been made known to the district court before the survey was transmitted to tlie general land office, or at least before It was acted upon and made the basis of a patent. The patent was not issued until nearly a year after the survey was.made and certified. Under the act of' 1851, it was within tlie power of the district court to have required a survey in exact conformity with its decree. Its jurisdiction over tlie subject did not end with the decree. The surveyor general was required by the statute (section 13) to cause an accurate survey to be made of all private claims finally confirmed under the act of 1851, and to furnish plats of tlie same. If he misinterpreted the decree; if he made an inaccurate survey, and excluded from it lands that were confirmed to the original claimants, — the court had authority to compel the proper execution of its decree.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“The patent having been accepted by the patentees, and being uncancelled, the plaintiffs in this action, claiming under the patentees, cannot recover lands not embraced by it, even if such lands are embraced by the lines established by the decree of confirmation--the conclusive presumption being that the patent correctly locates the lands covered by the confirmed grant.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.