Willcoxson v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
313 F.2d 884 · 1963
Citation profile
16 federal appellate · 2 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 20 later decisions — most recently June 1990
16 federal appellate · 2 district ·
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
Applies 30 U.S.C. § 21 · 30 U.S.C. § 226 · 42 U.S.C. § 2098 (Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009) · 43 U.S.C. § 1171 · 43 U.S.C. § 1181D · 43 U.S.C. § 1201 · 43 U.S.C. § 671 · 43 U.S.C. § 678
Relies on United States ex rel. McLennan v. Wilbur · Benson Mining & Smelting Co. v. Alta Mining & Smelting Co. · Wyoming v. United States · Atherton v. Fowler · Payne v. State of New Mexico
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 20 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“It has been contended, unsuccessfully, that the granting of a mineral patent is a matter which is “by law committed to agency discretion.” This view fails to recognize the fundamental distinction between the mining laws and the mineral leasing laws. Under the mineral leasing laws the Secretary may, in his discretion, refuse to issue any lease or prospecting permit at all on a given tract. The locator of a mining claim, however, holds his claim by virtue of an Act of Congress. Upon compliance■ with the requirements of the mining laws, he is entitled to a patent, and the Secretary has no discretion to deny an application for a mineral patent where all the requirements of law have been met. Thus, in the mining laws, Congress chose a method of disposing of public lands whereby the recipient of the grant had only to prove that he met the requirements of the law in order to have the rights he obtained by location confirmed by patent. The power confided by the Secretary with respect to the issuance of mineral patents is not that of granting or denying a privilege but of determining whether an existing privilege conferred by Congress has been lawfully exercised....”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.