Lee v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
1985
Citation profile
10 federal appellate · 3 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 21 later decisions — most recently December 2003
10 federal appellate · 3 district · 2 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 16 U.S.C. § 818 (§ 24 of the Federal Power Act of 1920) · 28 U.S.C. § 1346 (Federal Tort Claims Act) · 28 U.S.C. § 2409A · 43 U.S.C. § 1601 (Alaska Land Status Technical Corrections Act of 1992) · 43 U.S.C. § 1611 · 43 U.S.C. § 1613 · 43 U.S.C. § 1621 · 43 U.S.C. § 1632
Relies on Hawaii Housing Authority v. Midkiff · Block v. North Dakota Board of University and School Lands North Dakota Board of University and School Lands · City of Milwaukee v. Illinois · Inupiat Community of the Arctic Slope v. Atlantic Richfield Co. · Webb v. Heckler
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 21 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“lawful entries or entries which have been perfected under, or are being maintained in compliance with, laws leading to the acquisition of title.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“Congress intended ANCSA to “occupy the field” in this area and to preempt any common-law theories or other statutory claims that individuals might assert. Given the extensive set of provisions in ANC-SA delineating the rights of individual claimants to ANCSA-eonveyanee lands, any attempt to supplement these provisions with common-law remedies, such as the constructive-trust theory advanced by plaintiffs, would represent an attempt to alter the comprehensive legislative scheme adopted by Congress in ANCSA, rather than to “fill a gap ” that Congress has not occupied, and would therefore be an impermissible application of federal common law.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“The QTA ... does not bar these claims, since under its plain terms, the QTA applies only to claims brought "to quiet title against the United States. * * * Congress passed the QTA as a limited waiver of sovereign immunity for actions to acquire title from the federal government,... ., not to insulate private parties who acquire federal lands ... from bona fide actions to challenge their title." [ Lee v. United States, 629 F.Supp. 721, 727 (D.Alaska 1985) (citations omitted).]”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.