United States v. Hearing’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

3 district ·

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

1. ““It is not directly contended that the existence of these facts was not material to the right of the defendant to make his proof of qualification and purpose, before the clerk, to make an entry under the homestead act, but only that, however material they may have been in that connection, the statute did not require or authorize the defendant, to make an oath to them. The oath of the applicant to the affidavit or the excusatory facts is not compulsory. But whoever wishes to have the benefit of the homestead act, must show in some way the existence of the facts which entitle him thereto : and these, when not of record, being within the applicant’s knowledge, may be shown by Ms own oath. As to the facts showing the qualifications of the applicant and his purpose in making the entry, ihe statute expressly permits and requires them to be proven by his oath; and if there were no specific direction in the statute on the subject I think he would be allowed ,to do so as a matter of course. And this is the condition of the statute in regard to these excusatory facts. The mode of their proof is not prescribed; and convenience, usage, and necessity all point to the oath of the party as the proper evidence of their existence. Certainly it would be within fhe power of the Department to make a regulation on the subject permitting or prescribing this mode of proof in such a case. * * * The statute, not having prescribed the mode of proving the excusatory or preliminary facts, a regulation o”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. United States v. Nelson