Larkin v. Paugh’s Empirical Analysis
276 U.S. 431 · 1928
Citation profile
31 federal appellate · 22 district · 28 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 108 later decisions (4 by the Supreme Court) — most recently January 2013 · most notably Board of Com'rs of Jackson County Kan v. United States (1939), South Carolina v. Catawba Indian Tribe, Inc. (1986)
31 federal appellate · 22 district · 28 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 Dowell v. Applegate · United States v. California & Oregon Land Co. · Brown v. Hitchcock · Marin v. Augedahl · United States v. California & Oregon Land Co.
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 108 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“title not only passed from the United States but the prior trust and the incidental restriction against alienation were terminated”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““Where patents for public lands have been or may be issued, in pursuance of any law of the United States, to a person who has died before the date of such patent, the title to the land designated therein shall inure to and become vested in the heirs, devisees, or assignees of such deceased patentee as if the patent had issued to the deceased person during life.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““. . . counsel say: ‘We want to make plain the distinction between a legal and an illegal act. Deeds, leases, and other instruments affecting restricted lands, which are executed with the intention of obtaining the approval of the Secretary of the Interior, are not illegal, and do not violate any provision of the act of Congress. These instruments never become valid unless approved, but after approval they have the same validity as though the instrument had originally covered unrestricted land. On the other hand, instruments made for the purpose of evading the statute, without any intent of procuring the approval of the Secretary of the Interior, fall within the inhibitions of Congress. ’ “This may be conceded to be a correct statement of law.” (Italics ours.)”
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.