Barnes v. Poirier’s Empirical Analysis
64 F. 14 · 1894
Citation profile
3 federal appellate · 2 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 10 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently December 1976
3 federal appellate · 2 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
Relies on Anderson v. Carkins · Fairfield v. County of Gallatin · Suydam v. Williamson · Knight v. Leary · Montgomery v. Pacific Coast Land Bureau
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 10 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““This brief review of the legislation which has resulted in the existing provisions of the homestead law clearly shows that the purpose and policy which inspired the grants in sections 2289-2201, 2304, 2305, were the very opposite of those which inspired that in section 2306. The purpose of the former was to induce the permanent settlement of the donee upon, and the continued occupation and cultivation by him of, the land granted. Hence the requirements of settlement, cultivation, and occupation for a long period of time before entry, and of the affidavit of the homesteader at the time of final entry that he had not alienated any of the land, and hence the inevitable conclusion that any sale or contract of sale of the right to enter the land or of the land to be entered under these sections was an evasion of one of the main purposes of the act, and was against public policy and void. Anderson v. Carkins, 135 U. S. 483 , 10 Sup. Ct. 905 , 34 L. Ed. 272 . But the beneficiary of the grant under section 2306. had already selected, settled upon, cultivated, and acquired his homestead from the public domain, and was presumably in the occupation of it before that grant was made. The purpose of the grant under that section surely was not to induce him to abandon his homestead, and make a new settlement on the new grant. It was rather to reward him for the services he had already rendered as a soldier in suppressing the Rebellion, and as a farmer in establishing his home upon, cultiva”
2 later decisions 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.