Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 281 F.2d 931 - McNeil v. Seaton

McNeil v. Seaton’s Empirical Analysis

281 F.2d 931 · 1960

Citation profile

14
cited by 14 later decisions
May 1998
most recently cited

11 federal appellate · 1 district ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 14 later decisions — most recently May 1998

11 federal appellate · 1 district ·

801960197019801990decided

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 Stark v. Wickard · Tennessee Electric Power Co. v. Tennessee Valley Authority · Hatahley v. United States · General Reinsurance Corp. v. Commissioner · Switchmen's Union of North America v. Ogden Union Railway & Depot 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 14 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “Class 1. Land dependent by use, or full time prior water. Class 2. Land dependent by location, or full time water.” 43 CFR § 161.2 (k) (1) defines “land dependent by use” as “forage land other than Federal range of such character that the conduct of an economic livestock operation requires the use of the Federal range in connection with it and which, in the ‘priority period’, was used as a part of an established, permanent, and continuing livestock operation for any two consecutive years or for any three years of such priority period in connection with substantially the same part of the public domain, now part of the Federal range”. 43 OFR § 161.2(1) defines “land dependent by location” as “forage land other than Federal range, which is so situated and of such character that it can properly be used as a base for an economic livestock operation utilizing the forage resources of the Federal range”. These and other definitions of the Range Code are often modified or changed with respect to specific grazing districts by special rules promulgated by the Secretary of the Interior pursuant to 43 CFR § 161.16 .”
    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.