Edwards v. Bodkin’s Empirical Analysis
249 F. 562 · 1918
Citation profile
1 federal appellate · 4 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 9 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently December 1936
1 federal appellate · 4 district ·
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.
Relationships
Relies on Chin Yow v. United States · St.louis Smelting and Refining Company v. Kemp. · Johnson v. Towsley · Steel v. St Louis Smelting Refining · Moore v. Robbins
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 9 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““On May 5, 1908, the defendant served a notice of contest upon the plaintiff, in which it was charged that the plaintiff had never established a residence upon the land, had made no improvements thereon, and that he had abandoned the same for more than six months. The defendant, in support of this contest, made oath that ho did not know and had no means of knowing the facts. This was insufficient to initiate a contest. Schofield v. Cole, 1 Band Dec. 140.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Edwards v. Bodkin““A notice of contest against an entryman on public lands, in support of which the contestant made oath that he did not know and had no means of knowing the facts, is insufficient to initiate a contest.””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Edwards v. Bodkin“shall be allowed thirty days from date of such notice to enter said lands.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. McLaren v. Fleischer
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.