Nelson v. Northern Pacific Railway Co.’s Empirical Analysis
188 U.S. 108 · 1903
Citation profile
20 federal appellate · 6 district · 28 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 109 later decisions (20 by the Supreme Court) — most recently October 2011 · most notably United States v. Santa Fe Pacific Railroad (1941), United States v. Midwest Oil Co. (1915)
20 federal appellate · 6 district · 28 state decisions — followed in 12 states
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 Cohens v. Virginia · Leavenworth Lawrence and Galveston Railroad Company v. United States · Fairbank v. United States · St Paul Co v. Northern Pac R Co · Frisbie v. Whitney
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 109 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““That there be, and hereby is, granted,” etc., odd-numbered sections within prescribed limits, “and whenever on the line thereof the United States have full title, not reserved, sold, granted, or otherwise appropriated, and free from pre-emption or other claims or rights, at the time the line of said road is definitely fixed.””
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““The withdrawal merely from ‘sale or entry’ * * * was made only out of abundant caution and in accordance with a practice in the Land Department, and did not and could not affect any rights given to homestead occupants by Congress in the acts of 1864 and 1880.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““Nor is there any conflict between tbe decision now rendered and Northern Pacific Railroad v. Colburn, 164 U. S. 383 , 17 Sup. Ct. 98 , 41 L. Ed. 479 ; for, as appears from the opinion and record in that case, the land there claimed to have been occupied by a homestead settler at the date of definite location was surveyed public land, and the good faith of the occupation was not manifested by an entry, or an attempt at entry, at any time in the local land office. It was held that the inchoate right of the homesteader must be initiated by a filing in the land office. In the present case, as we have seen, the land occupied was unsurveyed, and at the time of such occupancy, the land being unsurveyed, there could not then have been, any filing or entry in the land office.””
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.