Fred Hewitt v. Emil Schultz’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

18 federal appellate · 13 district · 7 state decisions

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

1. ““May 31, 1870, Congress again authorized the company to issue bonds to aid in the construction and equipment of its road, to be secured by mortgage on all of its property, railroad, land grant, and franchise to be a corporation. It further authorized the location and construction of the main railroad via the valley of the Columbia River to Puget Sound and of a branch from the main line across the Cascade Mountains to Puget Sound, and made a grant of land in connection with the construction authorized between Portland and Puget Sound, on the same terms as the original grant. It also provided a second indemnity belt extending ten miles beyond the first on either side of the right of way. * * *. “The Resolution of May 31, 1870, granted, as respects the additional line authorized between Portland and Puget Sound, place and indemnity lands, as granted for the original line by the Act of 1864. It also authorized what are spoken of as ‘second indemnity’ belts ten miles wide, on either side of the original indemnity limits, in any state or territory in which the company could not obtain the number of sections intended for it by its charter. * * *»”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. United States v. Northern Pac. Ry. Co. · State ex rel. Morton v. Northern Pacific Railway Co.

2. ““It was'admitted at the hearing that the construction of the Northern Pacific Act of 1864 announced by Secretary Vilas had been adhered to in the administration of the public lands by the Land Department. We are now asked to overthrow that, construction by holding that it was competent for, the Land Department, immediately upon the definite location of the line of' the railroad, to withdraw from the settlement laws all the odd-numbered sections within the indemnity limits as defined by the act of Congress. If this were done it is to be apprehended that great, if not endless, confusion would ensue in the administration of the public lands, and that the rights of a vast number of people who have acquired homes under the pre-emptioii and homestead laws, in reliance upon the ruling of Secretary Vilas and his successors in office, would be destroyed. Of course, if the ruling of that office was plainly erroneous, it would be the duty of the court to give effect to the will of Congress ; for it is the settled doctrine of this court that the practice of a department in the execution of a statute is material only when doubt exists as to its true construction, But, without considering the matter as if it were for the first timo presented, it is sufficient to say tliat the question before ns cannot bo said to be free from doubt. The intention of Congress bas not been so clearly expressed as to exclude construction or argument in support of the view taken by Secretaries Lamar, Vilas, and”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. United States v. Northern Pac. Ry. Co.

3. ““Now, the grant provided for in its act of incorporation is every alternate section of public land not mineral (except coal and iron) designated by odd numbers to the amount of twenty alternate sections per mile on each side of said railroad line, through the Territories of the United States, and ten sections per mile on each side of said railroad whenever it passes through any State. “I am clearly of the opinion that by the joint resolution of May 31, 1870, Congress intended that the grant of twenty sections per mile on each side of the road to aid in the construction of said road should be extended to the whole line of the road including that part of the main line via the valley of the Columbia river through Portland to Puget Sound. This conclusion based alone upon the language of the joint resolution would be confirmed, if confii'mation was necessary, by the debates in Congress upon said resolution while it was pending and make clear the manifest pux-pose of said resolution.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State ex rel. Morton v. Northern Pacific Railway Co.