United States v. Sweet’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

67 federal appellate · 19 district · 36 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 204 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““In the legislation concerning the public lands it has been the practice of Congress to make a distinction between mineral lands and other lands, to deal with them along different lines, and to withhold mineral lands from disposal save under laws specially including them. * * * And while the mineral land laws are not applicable to all the public land states, some being specially excepted, there has been no time since their enactment when they were not applicable to Utah. * * * What has been said demonstrates that the school grant to Utah must be read in the light of the mining laws, the school land indemnity law and the settled public policy respecting mineral lands, and not as though it constituted the sole evidence of the legislative will. United States v. Barnes, 222 U. S. 513 , 520 [ 32 S. Ct. 117 , 56 L. Ed. 291 ]. When it is so read it does not, in our opinion, disclose a purpose to include mineral lands. Although couched in general terms adequate to embrace such lands if there were no statute or settled policy to the contrary, it contains no language which explicitly or clearly withdraws the designated sections, where known to be mineral in character, from the operation of the mining laws, or which certainly shows that Congress intended to depart from its long prevailing policy of disposing of mineral lands only under laws specially including them. It therefore must be taken as neither curtailing those laws nor departing from that policy.””

   5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Ashwander v. Tennessee Valley Authority · Dunbar Lime Co. v. Utah-Idaho Sugar Co.

2. “... the proceeds of lands herein granted for education purposes, except as hereinafter otherwise provided, shall constitute a permanent school fund, the interest of which only shall be expended for the support of said schools... .”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Jensen v. Dinehart

3. “That upon the admission of said State into the Union, sections numbered two, sixteen, thirty-two, and thirty-six in every township of said proposed State .. . are hereby granted to said State for the support of common schools.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Jensen v. Dinehart