Wilbur v. United States ex rel. Krushnic’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

105 federal appellate · 48 district · 39 state decisions

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

1. “"The rule is established by innumerable decisions of this Court, and of state and lower federal courts, that, when the location of a mining claim is perfected under the law, it has the effect of a grant by the United States of the right of present and exclusive possession. The claim is property in the fullest sense of that term; and may be sold, transferred, mortgaged, and inherited without infringing any right or title of the United States. The right of the owner is taxable by the state; and is ‘real property,’ subject to the lien of a judgment recovered against the owner in a state or territorial court. (Cases cited.) The owner is not required to purchase the claim or secure patent from the United States; but, so long as he complies with the provisions of the mining laws, his pos-sessory right, for all practical purposes of ownership, is as good as though secured by patent.””

   9 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Talache Mines Inc. v. United States · Branson v. Miracle

2. “[s]o far as the government was concerned, failure to do assessment work for any year was without effect.”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Walkeng Mining Company v. Covey · Cliffs Synfuel Corp. v. Norton

3. “The penalty for failure to comply with the requirement of the law, in respect to the performance of annual labor, is found in section twenty-three hundred and twenty-four of the Revised Statutes:— Upon a failure to comply with these conditions, the claim or mine upon which such failure occurs shall be open to relocation in the same manner as if no location of the same had ever been made. The term “forfeiture” does not appear in the statute, but the courts employ it as a comprehensive word indicating a legal result flowing from a breach of condition subsequent, subject to which the locator acquires his title. In a previous section we have noted the distinction between forfeiture and abandonment, and have there enumerated the leading characteristics of both. We have heretofore observed the reluctance with which the courts enforce this penalty. They have settled the doctrine that the forfeiture cannot be established except upon clear and convincing proof of the failure of the former owner to have work performed or improvements made to the amount required by law. While it is often said that a forfeiture can be shown only upon “clear and convincing evidence”, the proof is made as required whenever it is shown by a preponderance of the evidence that the full amount of annual labor or improvements was not made or expended within a given year. The courts do not incline to the enforcement of this class of penalties, which have always been deemed in law odious. Of course, while a claim”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Norton · 611 F. Supp. 1130 - Tosco Corp. v. Hodel