Gray v. Coykendall’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 district · 4 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 6 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““It was said in Treadwell v. Marrs, 9 Ariz. 333 , 83 P. 350, 355 , on an issue as to the location of a mining claim, ‘that, where the monuments are found upon the ground, or their position or location can be determined with certainty, the monuments govern, rather than the location certificate; but where the course and distances are not with certainty defined by monuments or stakes, the calls in the location notice must govern and control.’ This is a salutary and well-settled rule calculated to require the best evidence of the true boundaries of a claim, and to prevent the swinging or floating of claims to the detriment of subsequent locators. Of course inaccuracies or mistakes in a mining location will not invalidate the location, and in such cases monuments originally erected on the ground control the courses and distances. Book v. Justice Min. Co. (C.C.) 58 F. 106 ; Gibson v. Hjul, 32 Nev. 360 , 108 P. 759 . It is by such means that mistakes may be made known. But this applies only where the monuments or stakes can be clearly ascertained, otherwise the description in the location notice controls. Swanson v. Koeninger, 25 Idaho 361 , 137 P. 891 ; Tiggeman v. Mrzlak, 40 Mont. 19 , 105 P. 77 ; Flynn Group Min. Co. v. Murphy, 18 Idaho 266 , 109 P. 851 , 138 Am.St. Rep. 201; Thallman v. Thomas (C.C.) 102 F. 935 ; Lindley on Mines (3d ed.), sec. 375; 40 C.J. 807.” (Emphasis supplied)”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Lombardo Turquoise Milling & Mining Co., Inc. v. Hemanes · Masek v. Ostlund