Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 242 U.S. 371 - Dickson v. Luck Land Co.

Dickson v. Luck Land Co.’s Empirical Analysis

242 U.S. 371 · 1917

Citation profile

77
cited by 77 later decisions
11
cited 11 times by the Supreme Court
6
states following
March 2008
most recently cited

14 federal appellate · 11 district · 24 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 77 later decisions (11 by the Supreme Court) — most recently March 2008 · most notably Board of Com'rs of Jackson County Kan v. United States (1939), South Carolina v. Catawba Indian Tribe, Inc. (1986)

14 federal appellate · 11 district · 24 state decisions

2001917192019301940195019601970198019902000decided

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

reviewedLuck Land Co. v. Dickson

Relationships

Relies on Steel v. St Louis Smelting Refining · Luck Land Co. v. Dickson

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

  1. “With those restrictions [of Congress] entirely removed and the fee simple issued it would seem that the situation was one in which all questions pertaining to the disposal of the lands naturally would fall within the scope and operation of the laws of the State”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““There is no mention of his age in the patent, and yet it must be taken as impliedly containing a finding that he was then an adult. This is so, because, every patent for public or Indian lands carries with it an implied affirmation or finding of every fact made a prerequisite to its issue, and because the provision in the act of 1907 made the majority of the allottee a prerequisite to the issue of this patent.””
    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.