Everett Foster v. Fred A. Seaton, Secretary of the Interior’s Empirical Analysis
271 F.2d 836 · 1959
Citation profile
67 federal appellate · 23 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 113 later decisions (3 by the Supreme Court) — most recently March 2015 · most notably Best v. Humboldt Placer Mining Co. (1963), Watt v. Western Nuclear, Inc. (1983)
67 federal appellate · 23 district · 2 state decisions
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 Ickes v. Underwood · Teller v. United States · American Mutual Liability Insurance v. Adler · Casey v. John Hancock Mutual Life Insurance
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 113 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Thus, such a ‘mineral locator or applicant, to justify his possession, must show that by reason of accessibility, bona fides in development, proximity to market, existence of present demand, and other factors, the deposit is of such value that it can be mined, removed and disposed of at a profit.’ ” (citations omitted)”
9 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[W]here minerals have been found and the evidence is of such a character that a person of ordinary prudence would be justified in the further expenditure of his labor and means, with a reasonable prospect of success, in developing a valuable mine, the requirements of the statute have been met.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Palmer v. Dredge Corp. · No. 21435““ . . . the case really comes down to a question whether the Secretary’s finding was supported by substantial evidence on the record as a whole. We think it was. There may have been substantial evidence the other way also, but we do not weigh the evidence. The testimony of Shafer and his colleagues in support of the Government was clearly substantial and most certainly was not destroyed. He was an experienced man, knew sand and gravel, knew the Las Vegas area, and his testimony was clear, succinct and convincing." [emphasis added.]”
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.