Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 363 F.2d 190 - Coleman v. United States

Coleman v. United States’s Empirical Analysis

363 F.2d 190 · 1966

Citation profile

63
cited by 63 later decisions
1
states following
April 2012
most recently cited

42 federal appellate · 9 district · 1 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 63 later decisions — most recently April 2012 · most notably State of Washington v. Stewart L. Udall, Secretary of the Interior (1969), United States v. Webb (1981)

42 federal appellate · 9 district · 1 state decisions

300196619701980199020002010decided

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. § 161 · 30 U.S.C. § 22 · 30 U.S.C. § 23 · 30 U.S.C. § 29 · 30 U.S.C. § 38 · 30 U.S.C. § 611

Relies on Crowell v. Benson · Silver v. New York Stock Exchange · Wong Yang Sung v. McGrath · St.louis Smelting and Refining Company v. Kemp. · Best v. Humboldt Placer Mining 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 63 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “the Administrative Procedure Act does not permit a trial de novo of administrative decisions.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “It has long been established that a qualified entryman upon public lands of the United States, whether as a locator of a mining claim, as a homesteader, or as one asserting rights under others of the multifarious laws governing entries on public lands, who perfects his entry by compliance with the applicable Act of Congress, there-by acquires a right to the land as against the sovereign itself, as well as third persons.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “There is no statutory time limit for an aggrieved person to seek judicial review of agency action in the Department of the Interior under 5 U.S.C. § 1009.”
    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.