Stuart v. Union Pac. R.’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

13 federal appellate · 2 district ·

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 16 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““What really is the subject of the adverse claims of the parties is a strip 400 feet in width along the appellee’s railroad. Part of this is in the actual possession of the appellee, is occupied by permanent and costly railroad structures, and is being used as a right of way for strictly railroad purposes. If it be not true that the Pacific Railroad Acts granted a right of way 400 feet in width across the Eastman tract, it still is true that they authorized the acquisition, by agreement or condemnation, of a right of way thereover, not exceeding 200 feet in width. The owners of the tract did not insist that the railroad be not constructed and put in operation in advance of an exercise of this authority, but by their silence and inaction acquiesced in such construction and operation without any precedent agreement or condemnation. The railroad has been in operation since 1S70, and its continued operation has become a matter of large public concern. In addition, there is a pronounced and bona fide dispute as to how much of the tract has been occupied and used as a right of way; the appellants insisting that this occupancy and use have been confined to 25 feet or less on either side of the center line of the railroad, and the appellee insisting that they have extended to 50 feet or more on either side. In these circumstances it is apparent, as we think, that the appellants are entitled to a hearing and decision as to what extent the appellee is entitled to occupy and use the tra”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Ennis-Brown Co. v. Central Pac. Ry. Co.

2. ““Section 1. That the Union Pacific Railway Company, Eastern Division, be, and it hereby is, authorized to contract with the Denver Pacific Railway & Telegraph Company, a corporation existing under the laws of the territory of Colorado, for the construction, operation, and maintenance of that part of its line of railroad and telegraph between Denver City and its point of connection with the Union Pacific Railroad, which point shall he at Cheyenne, and to adopt the roadbed already graded by said Denver Pacific Railway & Telegraph Company as said line, and to grant to said Denver Pacific Railway & Telegraph Company the perpetual use of its right of way and depot grounds, and to transfer to it all the rights and privileges, subject to all the obligations pertaining to said part of its line. “Sec. 2. That the said Union Pacific Railway Company, Eastern Division, shall extend its railroad and telegraph to a connection at the city of Denver, so as to form with that part of its line herein authoiúzéd to be constructed, operated and maintained by the Denver Pacific Railway & Telegraph Company, a continuous line of railroad and telegraph from Kansas' City, by way of Denver to Cheyenne. And all the provisions of law for the operation of the Union Pacific Railroad, its branches and connections, as a continuous line, without discrimination, shall apply the same as if the road from Denver to CheyeDne bad been constructed by the said Union Pacific-Railway Company, Eastern Division; but noth”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Union Pac. R. v. City of Greeley

3. ““It is true, generally speaking, that in the courts of the United States a suit to quiet title cannot be maintained by a complainant who is not in possession against a defendant who is in possession; and this is so because there is a plain, complete, and adequate remedy at law. Whitehead v. Shattuck, 138 U. S. 146 , 150, 11 Sup. Ct. 276 , 34 L. Ed. 873 ; United States Mining Co. v. Lawson, 67 C. C. A. 587 , 134 Fed. 769 ; Lawson v. United States Mining Co., 207 U. S. 1 , 9, 28 Sup. Ct. 15 , 52 L. Ed. 65 . But it also is true that in exceptional cases, where there is no such remedy at law, the general rule does not apply.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Ennis-Brown Co. v. Central Pac. Ry. Co.