Burke v. Southern Pacific Railroad’s Empirical Analysis
234 U.S. 669 · 1914
Citation profile
123 federal appellate · 61 district · 107 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 398 later decisions (33 by the Supreme Court) — most recently August 2011 · most notably BedRoc Limited, LLC v. United States (2004), Cramer v. United States (1923)
123 federal appellate · 61 district · 107 state decisions — followed in 21 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.
Appellate journey
reviewedthe decision below (from Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals)
Relationships
Relies on Noble v. Union River Logging Railroad · St.louis Smelting and Refining Company v. Kemp. · Knight v. United Land Ass'n · United States v. San Jacinto Tin Co. · Ohio Oil Company v. State of Indiana
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 398 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Excluding and excepting all mineral lands, should any such be found, in the tracts aforesaid; but Ibis exclusion and exception, according to the terms of the statute, shall not be construed to include coal and iron lands.””
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““Of course, if the land officers are induced by false proofs to issue a patent for mineral lands under a non-mineral-land law, or if they issue such a patent fraudulently or through a mere inadvertence, a bill in equity, on the part of the Government, will lie to annul the patent and regain the title, or a mineral claimant who then had acquired such rights in the land as to entitle him to protection may maintain a bill to have the patentee declared a trustee for him; but such a patent is merely voidable, not void, and cannot be successfully attacked by strangers who had no interest in the land at the time the patent was issued and were not prejudiced by it. Colorado Coal & Iron Co. v. United States, 123 U. S. 307, 313 ; 8 S. Ct. 131 , 31 L. Ed. 182, 185 ; Diamond Coal Co. v. United States, 233 U. S. 236, 239 ; 34 S. Ct. 507 , 58 L. Ed. 936 ; Germania Iron Co. v. United States, 165 U. S. 379 ; 17 S. Ct. 337 , 41 L. Ed. 754 ; Duluth & Iron Range Railroad Co. v. Roy, 173 U. S. 587, 590 ; 19 S. Ct. 549 , 43 L. Ed. 820, 822 ; Hoofnagle v. Anderson, 7 Wheat. 212, 214-5 , 5 L. Ed. 437, 438 .””
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““It in not doubted that a patent'appropriates land. Any defects in the preliminary steps, which are required by law, are cured by the patent. It is a tifio from its date, and has always been held conclusive against all those whoso rights did not commence previous to its emanation. * * If a patent l«v> been issued irregularly, the government may provide means for repealing it ; but no individual has the right to annul it, to consider the land as still vacant, and to appropriate it to himself.””
3 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.