State of Oregon v. Ethan a Hitchcock a’s Empirical Analysis
202 U.S. 60 · 1906
Citation profile
56 federal appellate · 24 district · 27 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 191 later decisions (32 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 1998 · most notably Larson v. Domestic & Foreign Commerce Corp. (1949), Land US v. Dollar (1947)
56 federal appellate · 24 district · 27 state decisions — followed in 12 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 Osborn v. President Directors and Company of the Bank of the United States · United States v. Lee · Reagan v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co. · William Shields v. Robert R Barrow · In re Ayers
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 191 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““If whether the suit is one against the state is to be determined, not -by the fact of the party named as defendant on the record, but by the result of tile judgment or decree which may be entered, the same rule must apply to the United States. The question whether the United States is a party to the controversy is not determined by the me.rely nominal party on the record, but by tbe question of the effect of the judgment or decree which can be entered.””
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““Again, it must be noticed that the legal title to all these tracts of land is still in the government. No patents or conveyances of any kind have been executed. There has been no finding or adjudication by the land department that the lands referred to were swamp or overflowed on March 12, 1860. Under those circumstances it is not a province of the courts to interfere with the land department in its administration. So far as a grant of swamp lands is claimed, it must be held that the grant is in process of administration, and, until the legal title passes from the government, inquiry as to equitable rights comes within the cognizance of the land department. Courts may not anticipate its action, or take upon themselves the administration of the land grants of the United States.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Gauthier v. Morrison““While the nominal defendants are citizens of a state other than Oregon, yet they have no interest whatever in the controversy, and if a decree be rendered against them in favor of the state it will not affect their interests but bind and determine the rights of the United States, the real, substantial defendant.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Gouge v. Hart
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.