Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 209 U.S. 447 - United States v. Chandler-Dunbar Water Power Co.

United States v. Chandler-Dunbar Water Power Co.’s Empirical Analysis

209 U.S. 447 · 1908

Citation profile

154
cited by 154 later decisions
31
cited 31 times by the Supreme Court
10
states following
February 2014
most recently cited

47 federal appellate · 16 district · 30 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 154 later decisions (31 by the Supreme Court) — most recently February 2014 · most notably United States v. Chandler-Dunbar Water Power Co. (1913), Burke v. Southern Pacific Railroad (1914)

47 federal appellate · 16 district · 30 state decisions — followed in 10 states

620190819101920193019401950196019701980199020002010decided

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 v. Chandler-Dunbar Water Power Co. (from Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals)

Relationships

Relies on Shively v. Bowlby · John Pollard et al. v. John Hagan et al. · Davis v. Mills · The Propeller Genesee Chief Pierce Kelsey Cheney Hunter Swan Clark Strong v. Fitzhugh Littlejohn Peck · Illinois Central Railroad v. Illinois

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

  1. ““In form the statute only bars suits to annul the patent. But statutes of limitation, with regard to land, at least, which cannot escape from the jurisdiction, generally are held to affect the right, even if in terms only directed against the remedy. Leffingwell v. Warren, 2 Black 599 , 605, 17 L. Ed. 261 , 263; Sharon v. Tucker, 144 U. S. 533 , 12 S. Ct. 720 , 36 L. Ed. 532 ; Davis v. Mills, 194 U. S. 451 , 457, 24 S. Ct. 692 , 48 L. Ed. 1067 , 1071. This statute must be taken to mean that the patent is to be held good, and is to have the same effect against the United States that it would have had if it had been valid in the first place. See United States v. Winona & St. Peter R. R. Co., 165 U. S. 463 , 476, 17 S. Ct. 368 , 41 L. Ed. 789 , 795.””
    16 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““are little more than rocks, rising very slightly above the level of the water, and contained, respectively, a small fraction of an acre, and a little more than one acre. They were unsurveyed and of no apparent value.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “whether the title remains in the state or passed to the defendant with the land conveyed by the patent”
    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.