William Wadkins v. Producer Oil Company’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

4 federal appellate · 7 district · 23 state decisions

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

1. ““There can be no doubt that Wadkins’ inchoate right was initiated by his settlement, and that, as between Mm and any intervening claimant, his perfected right evidenced by the patent related back to the time of his settlement (Shepley v. Cowan, 91 U. S. 330, 338 , 23 L. Ed. 424, 427 ; Weyerhaeuser v. Hoyt, 219 U. S. 380, 388-390 , 55 L. Ed. 258, 261-263 , 31 Sup. Ct. Rep. 300); but he did not acquire any vested interest in the land until he had fully complied with the provisions of the homestead law, and submitted proof thereof at the local office. Prior to that time his right was essentially inchoate and exclusively within the operation of the laws of the United States, and those laws, as we have seen, fully dealt with the subject of who should be the beneficiary of a compliance with them, thereby excluding state laws from that field. This is a manifest deduction from McCune v. Essig [ 199 U. S. 382 , 26 S. Ct. 78 , 50 L. Ed. 237 ]. * * * ” Wadkins v. Producers’ Oil Co., 227 U. S. 368 , 33 S. Ct. 380 , 57 L. Ed. 551 .”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Ford v. Edenborn · Smith v. Anacoco Lumber Co.