Roughton v. Knight’s Empirical Analysis
219 U.S. 537 · 1911
Citation profile
16 federal appellate · 4 district · 16 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 48 later decisions (4 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 2002 · most notably United States v. Grimaud (1911), German Alliance Insurance Company v. Ike Lewis (1914)
16 federal appellate · 4 district · 16 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.
Relationships
Relies on Fletcher v. Peck · Sinking-Fund Cases v. United States Central Pacific Railroad Company · Noble v. Union River Logging Railroad · Johnson v. Towsley · Hyde v. Shine
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 48 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"Manifestly there must be an acceptance of the relinquishment by some one authorized to decide upon its sufficiency, and an assent to the particular selection made in lieu.””
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“‘ ‘ Power of Attorney ‘ ‘ Know All Men By These Presents : “That Whereas, under and by virtue of the provisions of an Act of Congress approved June 4, 1897 ( 30 Stat. 36 ) as amended March 3, 1905 ( 33 Stat. 1264 ) C. W. Clarke Co., a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of California, is entitled to select an equal area of land in lieu of the Northwest Quarter of Section Thirty-Five (35) in Township Fourteen (14) South of Range Twenty-Eight (28) East of Mount Diablo Meridian, State of California containing one hundred and sixty (160) acres which said land has been heretofore duly relinquished to the Government of the United States by deed of conveyance recorded in the proper county, said land being at the time of such deed included within the limits of a public forest reservation, “Now Therefore, this corporation has made, constituted and appointed, and by these presents does make, constitute and appoint L. E. Chapin, of the City of Oakland, County of Alameda, State of California, the true and lawful attorney-in-fact for said corporation, in its name, place and stead to Grant, Bargain, Sell and Convey by a deed or deeds sufficient to convey all of the right, title and interest that this corporation now owns, holds or possesses, and also all of the right, title and interest that it may hereafter acquire under said Acts of Congress of, in and to any land that has been or that may hereafter be selected as aforesaid, or any part thereof, on such terms a”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““But the act did not prescribe the method by which one so situated might avail himself of the proposal. It was therefore competent for the Band Department to adopt rules and regulations for the administration of the act in this particular, and this was done, and these rules are found in 24 Land Dec. Dep. Int. 502, 503.””
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.