De La Fayette Wilcox v. John Jackson’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

116 federal appellate · 40 district · 98 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 519 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “'We hold the true principle to be this, that whenever the question in any Court, state or federal, is, whether a title to land which had once been the property of the United States has passed, that question must be resolved by the laws of the United States; but that whenever, according to those laws, the title shall have passed, then that property, like all other property in the state, is subject to state legislation; so far as that legislation is consistent with the admission that the title passed and vested according to the laws of the United States.'”

   12 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Oregon State Land Board v. Corvallis Sand and Gravel Company Corvallis Sand and Gravel Company · Wilson v. Omaha Indian Tribe

2. ““We think it unnecessary to go into a detailed examination of the various acts of Congress, for the purpose of showing what we consider to be true, in regard to the public lands, that with the exception of a few cases nothing but a patent passes a perfect and consummate title. One class qf cases to be excepted is where an act of Congress grants land, as is sometimes done, in words of present grant. But we need not go into these exceptions. The general rule is what we have stated; and it applies as well to pre-emptions as to other purchases of public lands. Thus, it will appear by the very act of 1836, which wo have been examining, that patents are to issue in preemption eases. This, then, being the case, and this suit having been in effect against the United States, to hold that the party could recover as against them, would be to hold that a party having an inchoate and imperfect title could recover against the one in whom resided the perfect title. This, as a general propositon of law, unquestionably cannot be maintained.””

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Shiver v. United States · Carter v. Ruddy

3. ““Now, although the immediate agent, in requiring this reservation was the Secretary of War, yet we feel justified in presuming that it was done by the approbation and direction of the President. The President speaks and acts through the heads of the several departments in relation to subjects which appertain to their respective duties. * * * Hence, we consider the act of the War Department, in requiring this reservation to ho made, as being in legal contemplation the act of the President.””

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Wolsey v. Chapman · United States v. Chicago, M. & St. P. Ry. Co.