Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 206 U.S. 467 - United States v. Paine Lumber Co.

United States v. Paine Lumber Co.’s Empirical Analysis

206 U.S. 467 · 1907

Citation profile

53
cited by 53 later decisions
13
cited 13 times by the Supreme Court
3
states following
December 1993
most recently cited

15 federal appellate · 5 district · 5 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 53 later decisions (13 by the Supreme Court) — most recently December 1993 · most notably Heckman v. United States (1912), Tiger v. Western Investment Co. (1911)

15 federal appellate · 5 district · 5 state decisions

1101907191019201930194019501960197019801990decided

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 Libby v. Clark

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

  1. ““Trie land is not tbe land of tbe United States, and tbe timber when cut did not become tbe property of tbe United States. And we cannot extend tbe restraint upon tbe alienation of tbe land to a restraint upon tbe sale of tbe timber consistently witb a proper and beneficial use of tbe land by tbe Indians. * * * Indeed, it may be said that- arable land is of no use until tbe timber is off, and it was of arable land that tbe treaty contemplated tbe allotments would be made. We encounter difficulties and bafliing inquiries when we concede a cutting for clearing tbe land for cultivation, and deny it for other purpose. At wbat time shall we date tbe preparation for cultivation and make tbe right to sell tbe timber depend? Must tbe axe * * * precede tbe plow and do no more than keep out of its way? And if that close relation be not always maintained, may tbe purpose of an allottee be questioned and referred to some advantage other than tbe cultivation of tbe land, and bis title or that of bis vendee to tbe timber be denied? Nor does tbe argument which makes tbe occupation of tbe land a test of tbe title to tbe timber seem to ns more adequate to justify tbe qualification of tbe Indians’ rights.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““The restraint upon alienation must not be exaggerated. It does not of itself divest the right below a fee.””
    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.