Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 199 F.3d 1093 - United States v. Shumway

United States v. Shumway’s Empirical Analysis

199 F.3d 1093 · 1999

Citation profile

95
cited by 95 later decisions
2
states following
April 2025
most recently cited

31 federal appellate · 28 district · 2 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 95 later decisions — most recently April 2025 · most notably Diaz v. Eagle Produce Ltd. Partnership (2008), Karuk Tribe v. United States Forest Service (2012)

31 federal appellate · 28 district · 2 state decisions

4901999200020102020decided

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 Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. · St.louis Smelting and Refining Company v. Kemp. · United States v. North American Transportation & Trading Co. · Wilbur v. United States ex rel. Krushnic · Benson Mining & Smelting Co. v. Alta Mining & Smelting Co.

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

  1. “[i]n most cases, consequently, that an affidavit is self-serving bears on its credibility, not on its cognizability for purposes of establishing a genuine issue of material fact. Only in certain instances — such as when a declaration states only conclusions, and not such facts as would be admissible in evidence, — can a court disregard a selfserving declaration for purposes of summary judgment.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “(a) Except as provided in paragraph (a)(2) of this section, a notice of intention to operate is required from any person proposing to conduct operations which might cause disturbance of surface resources. Such notice of intention shall be submitted to the District Ranger having jurisdiction over the area in which the operations will be conducted. If the District Ranger determines that such operations will likely cause significant disturbance of surface resources, the operator shall submit a proposed plan of operations to the District Ranger. 4”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “The Secretary of Agriculture has been given the responsibility and the power to maintain and protect our national forests and the lands therein. While prospecting, locating, and developing of mineral resources in the national forests may not be prohibited nor so unreasonably circumscribed as to amount to a prohibition, the Secretary may adopt reasonable rules and regulations which do not impermissibly encroach upon the right to the use and enjoyment of placer claims for mining purposes.”
    2 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.