Converse v. Udall’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

33 federal appellate · 10 district · 2 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 53 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““Where minerals have been found and the evidence is of such a character that a person of ordinary prudence would be justified in the further expenditure of his labor and means, with a reasonable prospect of success, in developing a valuable mine, the requirements of the statute have been met.””

   5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. United States v. Curtis-Nevada Mines, Inc. · 408 F. Supp. 1361 - Thomas v. Morton

2. ““Under the mining laws Congress has made public lands available to people for the purpose of mining valuable mineral deposits and not for other purposes. The obvious intent was to reward and encourage the discovery of minerals that are valuable in an economic sense. Minerals which no prudent man will extract because there is no demand for them at a price higher than the cost of extraction and transportation are hardly economically valuable. Thus, profitability is an important consideration in applying the prudent-man test, and the marketability test which the Secretary has used here merely recognizes this fact.” Coleman 390 U.S. at 602-603 , 88 S.Ct. at 1330 .”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 537 F. Supp. 57 - United States v. Smith Christian Mining Enterprises, Inc. · 353 F. Supp. 184 - Multiple Use, Inc. v. Morton

3. ““The evidence is not . . . that economically recoverable alumina exists in all oil shale or under all the contested claims. The evidence is that aluminum is an element universally present in the earth’s crust. It is found in alumina-bearing compounds throughout the oil shale of the Piceance Creek Basin, but there is no evidence that all of such oil shale, or the shale which is on the claims concerned contains economically recoverable alumina from which aluminum may be commercially extracted. “Appellants made no attempt to pinpoint any claim and assert that it contained economically extractable aluminum by showing reliable evidence as to the cost of extraction and marketing.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Roberts v. Morton