Lawson v. United States Mining Co.’s Empirical Analysis
207 U.S. 1 · 1907
Citation profile
89 federal appellate · 12 district · 29 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 169 later decisions (21 by the Supreme Court) — most recently July 1960 · most notably Pusey & Jones Co. v. Hanssen (1923), Walling US v. General Industries Co (1947)
89 federal appellate · 12 district · 29 state decisions
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.
Appellate journey
reviewedUnited States Min. Co. v. Dawson (from Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals)
Relationships
Relies on Whitehead v. Shattuck · Holland v. Challen · Reynolds v. First Nat Bank of Crawfordsville Indiana · Stark v. Starrs · Wehrman v. Conklin
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 169 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"With reference to the conclusion of the Court of Appeals it is sufficient to say that, if the testimony does not show that it is correct, it fails to show that it is wrong, and under those circumstances we are not justified in disturbing that conclusion. It is our duty to accept a finding of fact, unless clearly and manifestly wrong.””
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““Action to determine adverse claim. An action may be brought by any person against another who claims an estate or interest in real property adverse to him, for the purpose of determining such adverse claim.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““It is sufficient to say that by stipulation of counsel it was agreed that the patents * * ° were issued upon the location notices. Inasmuch as they were accepted by the government, and patents issued thereon it was a recognition by the department of the conformity of the proceedings to the local rules and customs of the district, and such ruling is not open to challenge by third parties claiming rights arising subsequently to such notices. * * * Acceptance by the government of location proceedings hacl before the statute of 1866, and issue of a patent thereon, is evidence that those location proceedings were in accordance with the rules and customs of the local miniDg district!””
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.