Skeen v. Lynch’s Empirical Analysis
48 F.2d 1044 · 1931
Citation profile
16 federal appellate · 2 district · 3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 24 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 1983
16 federal appellate · 2 district · 3 state decisions
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. § 221 · 43 U.S.C. § 291 · 43 U.S.C. § 299
Relies on Mason v. United States · State of California v. Southern Pac Co · State of Louisiana v. James Rudolph Garfield · United States v. St Paul M & M Ry Co · Danciger v. Cooley
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 24 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““No room to doubt that it was the purpose of Congress in the use of the phrase ‘all coal and other minerals’ to segregate the two estates, the surface for stockraising and agricultural purposes from the mineral estate, and to grant the former to entrymen and to reserve all of the latter to the United States.” p. 1046.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“MR. FERRIS. Mr. Chairman, on page 7, lines 24 and 25, and on page 8 this law is made subject to all of the three surface-entry bills that we have passed, and those three laws provide for damage and everything else. MR. MONDELL. Where is that? MR. FERRIS. On page 7, lines 24 and 25: The coal and other mineral deposits in such lands shall be subject to disposal by the United States in accordance with the provisions of the coal and mineral land laws in force at the time of such disposal. MR. MONDELL. Those are not the so-called limited-entry laws, affecting the limited entryman, but the laws affecting the miner. MR. FERRIS. The three surface-entry acts already passed. They are the laws already referred to. MR. MONDELL. The gentleman is entirely mistaken, and, further, I wish he would not call the laws he refers to surface-entry laws, for they are not. They convey fee titles. They give the owner much more than the surface; they give him all except the body of the reserved mineral. 53 Cong.Rec. 1233-1234 (64th Cong., 1st Sess., 1916)”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““Excepting and reserving, however, to the United States all the coal and other minerals in the lands so entered and patented, together with the right to prospect for, mine, and remove the same pursuant to the provisions and limitations of the Act of December 29, 1916 ( 39 Stat. 862 ).””
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.