Kean v. Calumet Canal & Improvement Co.’s Empirical Analysis
190 U.S. 452 · 1903
Citation profile
25 federal appellate · 13 district · 46 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 121 later decisions (18 by the Supreme Court) — most recently April 2016 · most notably State of Kansas v. State of Colorado (1907), State of Oklahoma v. State of Texas (1922)
25 federal appellate · 13 district · 46 state decisions — followed in 16 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 Shively v. Bowlby · Hardin v. Jordan · Central Transportation Co. v. Pullman's Palace Car Co. · St.louis Smelting and Refining Company v. Kemp. · John Pollard et al. v. John Hagan et al.
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 121 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Tlie resurvey by the United States in 1874 does not affect tbe Calumet Company’s rights. As the United States already had conveyed the lands, it had no jurisdiction to intermeddle with them in the form of a second survey.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“* * * the land was selected as `swamp and overflowed lands' by the state. It not appearing otherwise, the selection must be presumed to have included the land overflowed, and if so it was confirmed to the state by the act of March 3, 1857, chap. 117 (11 Stat. at L. 251, Rev.Stat. § 2484, U.S.Comp.Stat. 1901, p. 1588 [ 43 U.S.C.A. § 986 ]). * * * The land surrounding the water, at least, was surveyed, so that the identification of the submerged portion was absolute. We are of opinion that the state of Indiana got a title to the whole land in dispute. If the state of Indiana got a title, it gave one . There is not much controversy on this point.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Aucoin
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.