Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 269 U.S. 140 - Anderson v. Clune

Anderson v. Clune’s Empirical Analysis

269 U.S. 140 · 1925

Citation profile

8
cited by 8 later decisions
1
cited 1 times by the Supreme Court
2
states following
February 1976
most recently cited

1 federal appellate · 6 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 8 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently February 1976

1 federal appellate · 6 state decisions

30192519301940195019601970decided

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

reviewedthe decision below (from Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals)

Relationships

Relies on Eber Ward Survivor Owner of the Steamboat Detroit v. Charles Thompson · Webster v. Luther · Barnes v. Poirier · Mullen v. Wine

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

  1. “By the terms of the statute (section 2306, Revised Statutes), the Soldiers’ Additional Homestead Right is limited to the entry of ‘so much land as, when added to the quantity previously entered shall not exceed one hundred and sixty acres.’ When this right of entry is exercised upon surveyed land, as it must be, if exercised at all, outside of Alaska, the land must be taken according to legal subdivision. . . . Section one of the act of May 14, 1898 (30 Stat., 409), among other things, grants the right to enter unsurveyed lands in the district of Alaska under provisions of law relating to the acquisition of title through Soldiers’ Additional Homestead Rights. Public lands in Alaska are not surveyed and no provision has been made for extending over them the system of public surveys. . . . Land cannot be entered there as an additional homestead, by legal subdivisions, because there are no such subdivisions. It is essential, however, to the allowance of entry that the land shall have been surveyed, and provision is made in the fourth paragraph of circular instructions, issued June 8, 1898, under the said act (27 L.D. 248), for the necessary survey, in the following language: ‘The act makes no direct provision for the surveying of lands sought to be entered as Soldiers’ Additional Homestead claims, and therefore special surveys must be made of such lands in the manner provided for in section 10 of this act, at the expenses of the applicant.’ By means of the special survey the acr”
    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.