Oregon & California Railroad v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
189 U.S. 103 · 1903
Citation profile
8 federal appellate · 3 district · 9 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 45 later decisions (7 by the Supreme Court) — most recently April 1926 · most notably Southern Pacific Railroad v. United States (1906), Weyerhaeuser v. Hoyt (1911)
8 federal appellate · 3 district · 9 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.
Appellate journey
reviewedOregon & C. R. v. United States (from Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals)
Relationships
Relies on United States v. San Jacinto Tin Co. · United States v. Beebe · Wisconsin Cent Co v. Price County · Kansas Pac Ry Co v. Atchison T S F R Co · St. Paul & Sioux City Railroad v. Winona & St. Peter Railroad
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 45 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The reason of this is that, as no vested right can attach to the lands in place — the odd-numbered sections within six miles of each side of the road —'Until these sections are ascertained and identified by a legal location of the line of the road, so in regard to the lands to be selected within a still larger limit, their identification cannot be known until the selection is made. It may be a long time after the lino of the road is located before it is ascertained how many sections, or parts of sections, within the primary limits have boon lost by sale or pre-emption. It may be still longer before a selection is made to supply this loss.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““It is also said that all the lands within the indemnity limits were required to supply the deficit in place limits arising from the disposition prior to definite location by sale and otherwise of lands within the granted limits. But the extent to which lieu lands could be required to supply such deficit in place lands could not be properly or legally determined until there was an adjustment of the grant of lands in respect of place limits.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““Under this statute, when the road was located and the maps were made, the right of the company to the odd sections first named ¡became ipso facto fixed and absolute. With respect to the ‘lieu lands,’ as they are called, the right was only a float, and attached to no specific tracts until the selection was actually made in the manner prescribed.””
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.