Franklin Lane v. Svan Hoglund’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

109 federal appellate · 17 district · 8 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 173 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““That after the lapse of two years from the date of the issuance of the receiver’s receipt upon the final entry of any tract'of land under the homestead, timber-culture, desert-land, or pre-emption laws, or under this act, and when there shall be no pending contest or protest against the validity of such entry, the entryman shall be entitled to a patent conveying the land by him entered, and the same shall be issued to him.””

   5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Payne v. United States ex rel. Newton · Stockley v. United States

2. ““ Every statute to some extent requires construction by the public officer whose duties may be defined therein. Such officer must read the law, and he must therefore, in a certain sense, construe it, in order to form a judgment from its language what duty he is directed by the statute to perform. But that does not necessarily and in all cases make the duty of the officer anything other than a purely ministerial one. If the law direct him to perform an act in regard to which no discretion is committed to him, and which, upon the facts existing, he is bound to perform, then that act is ministerial, although depending upon a statute which requires, in some degree, a construction of its language by the officer.” See also Work v. United States ex rel. Mosier, 261 U. S. 352 .”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Work v. United States ex rel. McAlester-Edwards Co. · Miguel v. McCarl

3. ““Looking, then, at the statute in the light of all that bears upon its purpose and meaning, we think it certainly and unmistakably lays upon the Secretary of the Interior, as the h,ead of the Land Department, a plain duty to cause a patent to be issued to a homestead entryman whenever it appears, as coneededly it did in this instance, that two years have elapsed since the issue of the receiver’s receipt upon the final entry and that during that period no proceeding has been initiated or order made which calls in question the validity of the entry. In the exercise of its discretion, Congress has said, in substance, by this statute that for two years after the entryman submits final proof and obtains the receiver’s receipt the entry may be held open for the initiation of proceedings to test its validity, but that if none such be begun within that time it shall be passed to patent as a matter of course. Thus in a ease like this, where according to the conceded facts no proceeding was begun within the prescribed period, there is no room for the exercise of discretion or judgment, but on the contrary a plain duty to see that the entryman receives a patent.””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Payne v. United States ex rel. Newton · Work v. United States ex rel. Davis