Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 181 U.S. 269 - Speed v. McCarthy

Speed v. McCarthy’s Empirical Analysis

181 U.S. 269 · 1901

Citation profile

24
cited by 24 later decisions
6
cited 6 times by the Supreme Court
4
states following
June 1957
most recently cited

10 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 24 later decisions (6 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 1957

10 state decisions

90190119101920193019401950decided

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 Oxley Stave Co. v. Butler County · Gillis v. Stinchfield · Pittsburg Lake Angeline Iron Company v. Cleveland Iron Mining Company · McCarthy v. Speed

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

  1. ““The court held that the relation of cotenant existed between McCarthy and Franklin when Franklin located the Holy Terror and Keystone claims; that original locators may resume work at any time before relocation; that Franklin’s acts of relocation did not terminate the fiduciary relation between himself and McCarthy; and said: ‘We think the circuit court should have adjudged the defendants to be trus tees, and have enforced the trust. This conclusion is not precluded by the language of the Federal statutes. They provide that upon a failure to comply with required conditions as to labor or improvements “the claim or mine upon which such failure occurred shall be open to relocation in the same manner as if no location of the same had ever been made. ’ ’ Rev. Stat. U.S. sec. 2324. It is contended that if Congress intended to have the relocator regarded as a trustee under any circumstances, such intention would have been expressed in the statute. The contention is not tenable. The trust results from the fiduciary relation of the parties, and not from the operation of the statute.’ ””
    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.