Scott v. Lattig’s Empirical Analysis
227 U.S. 229 · 1913
Citation profile
55 federal appellate · 18 district · 70 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 214 later decisions (31 by the Supreme Court) — most recently May 2009 · most notably United States v. Chandler-Dunbar Water Power Co. (1913), Donnelly v. United States (1913)
55 federal appellate · 18 district · 70 state decisions — followed in 17 states
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 Shively v. Bowlby · Hardin v. Jordan · St.louis Smelting and Refining Company v. Kemp. · John Pollard et al. v. John Hagan et al. · Knight v. United Land Ass'n
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 214 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Of course, the error in omitting it from the survey did not divest the United States of the title, or interpose any obstacle to surveying it at a later time. Neither was the error calculated to induce purchasers of the fractional subdivisions on the east bank to believe that by paying for the 73.30 and 98.75 acres in those tracts they would get, respectively, 54.75 and 83.40 acres more on the island on the other side of the 300-foot channel. Horne v. Smith, 159 U.S. 40 [40 L.Ed. 68, 15 Sup.Ct.Rep. 988]; Niles v. Cedar Point Club, 175 U.S. 300 , 306 [44 L.Ed. 171, 173, 20 Sup.Ct.Rep. 124].”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“But the island, which we have seen was in existence when Idaho became a state, was not part of the stream or land under the water, and therefore its ownership did not pass to the state, or come within the disposing influence of its laws. On the contrary, although surrounded by the waters of the river and widely separated from the shore, it was fast dry land, and therefore remained the property of the United States and subject to disposal under its laws, as did the island which was in controversy in Mission Rock Co. v. United States, 48 C.C.A. 641 , 109 Fed. 763, 769, 770 , and United States v. Mission Rock Co., 189 U.S. 391 , 47 L.Ed. 865 , 23 Sup.Ct.Rep. 606 .”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““ * * * (It) was settled long ago by this court, upon a consideration of the relative rights and powers of the Federal and state governments under the Constitution, that lands underlying navigable waters within the several states belong to the respective states in virtue of their sovereignty, and may be used and disposed of as they may direct, subject always to the rights of the public in such waters and to the paramount power of Congress to control their navigation so far as may be necessary for the regulation of commerce among the states and with foreign nations * *”
2 later decisions 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.