McKinley Creek Mining Company v. Alaska United Mining Company’s Empirical Analysis
183 U.S. 563 · 1902
Citation profile
25 federal appellate · 12 district · 24 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 83 later decisions — most recently June 1959 · most notably Frank Waskey v. Joseph Hammer (1912), Lavagnino v. Uhlig (1905)
25 federal appellate · 12 district · 24 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 Belk v. Meagher · Forbes v. Gracey · Gwillim v. Donnellan · Haws v. Victoria Copper Mining Co. · Manuel v. Wulff
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 83 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““These notices constituted a sufficient location. The creek was identified, and between it and the stump there was a definite relation, which, combined with the measurements, enabled the boundaries of the claim to be readily traced.””
2 later decisions 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.