Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 559 P2D 630 - State v. Lewis

State v. Lewis’s Empirical Analysis

1977

Citation profile

40
cited by 40 later decisions
5
states following
January 2021
most recently cited

40 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 40 later decisions — most recently January 2021 · most notably Jenkins v. Swan (1983), 172 W. Va. 8 - Atchinson v. Erwin (1983)

40 state decisions

170197719801990200020102020decided

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

Relies on Organized Village of Kake v. Egan · Coyle v. Smith · Metlakatla Indian Community, Annette Islands Reserve v. Egan · 25 Wash. 2d 652 - Boeing Aircraft Co. v. Reconstruction Finance Corp. · 84 Wash. 2d 164 - Tonasket v. State

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 40 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “In 1955, the Territory of Alaska, through its legislature, provided for a constitutional convention. Elected delegates adopted a Constitution on February 5, 1956, which was ratified by the -people of Alaska on April 24, 1956.' This Constitution adopted by the people of Alaska served as the basis for subsequent petitions to-Congress for'statehood and constituted an offer to accept the privileges and responsibilities of that status in accordance with its terms. Throughout the process of drafting the Constitution and its adoption, there was considerable public controversy surrounding the issue of federal control over Alaska’s power to dispose of its mineral resources. In statehood legislation for other states, Congress had limited land grants to non-mineral lands. Public lands, which were known to be chiefly valuable for commercial mineral production at the time of the grants, were retained in federal ownership for management and disposition under a theoretically unified system of federal mineral law. In part to avoid the litigation over titles which had resulted from this policy, Congress passed the School Lands Act of 1927, 43 U.S.C. § 870 . This act extended the original statehood land grants to embrace lands mineral in character. These additional grants, however, were made subject to a mineral alienation condition which prohibited state disposal of land without a reservation of minerals and permitted a forfeiture action instituted by the Attorney General on behalf of the Uni”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
  2. “(3) All provisions of the Act of Congress approved [July 7, 1958] reserving rights or powers to the United States, as well as those prescribing the terms or conditions of the grants of lands or other property therein made to the State of Alaska, are consented to fully by said State and its people.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent

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.