O'Hanlon v. Ruby Gulch Mining Co.’s Empirical Analysis
1922
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 2 district · 23 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 27 later decisions — most recently December 1985 · most notably Rae v. Cameron (1941), Carlson v. Northern Pacific Railway Co. (1929)
2 federal appellate · 2 district · 23 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 Foster v. Mansfield, Coldwater & Lake Michigan Railroad · Graham v. Boston, Hartford & Erie Railroad · Riley v. Blacker · Neary v. Northern Pacific Railway Co. · Gay v. Lavina State Bank
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 27 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““While it is true that the statute of limitations had not run against the claim now asserted by plaintiffs, that fact alone does not determine their rights. The delay which will bar relief in equity is not necessarily measured by the period prescribed by the statute. It may be much less, depending upon the peculiar circumstances of the case, and in determining whether laches shall bar a particular claim it is proper to consider whether a party or an important witness has died, and the party against whom the claim is asserted has been deprived thereby of important testimony [Citing case], or whether the property involved has increased in value [Citing case], or whether the property has passed into the hands of am innocent third party [Citing case], or whether the position of the parties is so changed otherwise that an injustice will follow a failure to apply the doctrine [Citing case]. These rules have been enforced repeatedly in this court, and further reference to the authorities need not be made. [Citing cases].” Emphasis supplied.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Barrett v. ZENISEK
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.