Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 196 U.S. 207 - United States v. United Verde Copper Co.

United States v. United Verde Copper Co.’s Empirical Analysis

196 U.S. 207 · 1905

Citation profile

128
cited by 128 later decisions
11
cited 11 times by the Supreme Court
6
states following
June 2008
most recently cited

53 federal appellate · 13 district · 20 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 128 later decisions (11 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 2008 · most notably Jama v. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (2005), Light v. United States (1911)

53 federal appellate · 13 district · 20 state decisions

30019051910192019301940195019601970198019902000decided

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 Field v. Clark · Central Transportation Co. v. Pullman's Palace Car Co. · Pennoyer v. McConnaughy · In re Kollock · United States v. Johnston

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

  1. ““The Secretary of the Interior attempts by it to give an authoritative and final construction to the statute. This, we think, is beyond his power. * * * If rule 7 is valid, the Secretary of the Interior has power to abridge or enlarge the statute at will. If he can define one term, he can another. If he can abridge, he can enlarge. Such power is not regulation; it is legislation. The power of legislation was certainly not intended to be conferred upon the Secretary.””
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““We may properly and accurately speaK of domestic' manufactures, meaning not tliose of the household, but those of a county, state, or nation, according to the object in contemplation. So in the statute the word ‘domestic’ applies to the locality to which the statute is directed, and gives permission to the industries there practiced to use the public timber. This definition of ‘domestic’ gives the word an apt and sensible meaning, and we must regard the association of the word ‘other’ with it as designed, not as accidental.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. ““No timber is permitted to be used for smelting purposes, smelting being a separate and distinct industry from that of mining.””
    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.