United States v. Colorado Anthracite Co.’s Empirical Analysis
225 U.S. 219 · 1912
Citation profile
22 federal appellate · 8 district · 10 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 71 later decisions (12 by the Supreme Court) — most recently February 2009 · most notably Panama Co v. Johnson (1924), Independent Wireless Telegraph Co. v. Radio Corp. (1926)
22 federal appellate · 8 district · 10 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 United States v. Keitel · United States v. Trinidad Coal & Coking Co. · Smithsonian Institution v. Meech · Irvine v. Marshall
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 71 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““These restrictions, as this court has held, forbid individuals and associations from acquiring public coal land in excess of the quantities prescribed, whether directly by entries in their own names or indirectly by entries made for tlieir benefit in the names of others. And so, one person cannot lawfully make an entry in the interest of another who has had the benefit of the law, or in the interest of an association where it or any of its members has had the benefit thereof, or in the interest of a person or an association where he or it has not had such benefit but is seeking, through entries made or ti-be made by others in his or its interest, to acquire a greater quantity of land than is permitted by the law. U. S. v. Trinidad Coal & Coking Co., 137 U. S. 160 [ 11 Sup. Ct. 57 , 34 L. Ed. 640 ]; U. S. v. Keitel, 211 U. S. 370 [ 29 Sup. Ct. 123 , 53 L. Ed. 230 ]; U. S. v. Forrester, 211 U. S. 399 [ 29 Sup. Ct. 132 , 53 L. Ed. 215 ]; U. S. v. Munday, 222 U. S. 175 [ 32 Sup. Ct 53 , 56 L. Ed. 149 ].””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““Tlie three preceding sections shall bo held to authorize only one entry by the same person or association of persons; and no association of persons any member of which shall have taken the benefit of such sections, either as an individual or as a member of any other association, shall enter or hold any other lands under the provisions thereof; and no member of any association which shall have taken the benefit of such sections shall enter or hold any other lands under their provisions.””
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.