Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 197 U.S. 313 - Chrisman v. Miller

Chrisman v. Miller’s Empirical Analysis

197 U.S. 313 · 1905

Citation profile

279
cited by 279 later decisions
24
cited 24 times by the Supreme Court
7
states following
February 2022
most recently cited

75 federal appellate · 73 district · 46 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 279 later decisions (24 by the Supreme Court) — most recently February 2022 · most notably Donnelly v. United States (1913), Best v. Humboldt Placer Mining Co. (1963)

75 federal appellate · 73 district · 46 state decisions

4801905191019201930194019501960197019801990200020102020decided

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 Bement Sons v. National Harrow Company · Belk v. Meagher · Deffeback v. Hawke · Kaufman v. Tredway

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

  1. ““Where minerals have been found and the evidence is of such a character that a person of ordinary prudence would be justified in the further expenditure of his labor and means, with a reasonable prospect of success, in developing a valuable mine, the requirements of the statute have been met.””
    17 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “‘'When the controversy is between two mineral claimants the rule respecting the sufficiency of a discovery of mineral is more liberal than when it is between a mineral claimant and one seeking to make an agricultural entry, for the reason that where land is sought, to be taken out of the category of agricultural lands the evidence of its mineral character should be reasonably clear, while in respect to mineral lands, in a controversy between claimants, the question is simply which is entitled to priority. * * * But even in such a case * * * (hero must be such a discovery of minerals as gives reasonable evidence of the fact either that there is a vein or lode carrying the precious mineral, or if it be claimed as placer ground that it is valuable for such mining.””
    12 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. ““Giving full weight to the testimony of Barieau, we should not be justified, even in a case coming from a federal court, in overthrowing the finding that he made no discovery. There was not enough in what he claims to have seen to have justified a prudent person in the expenditure of money and labor in exploitation for petroleum. It merely suggested a possibility that the ground, contained oil sufficient to make it chiefly valuable therefor.””
    5 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.