Dubuque & Pacific Railroad v. Litchfield’s Empirical Analysis
64 U.S. 66 · 1859
Citation profile
8 federal appellate · 2 district · 19 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 111 later decisions (32 by the Supreme Court) — most recently January 2006 · most notably Central Transportation Co. v. Pullman's Palace Car Co. (1891), United States v. Midwest Oil Co. (1915)
8 federal appellate · 2 district · 19 state decisions — followed in 12 states
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.
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 111 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The reason of the above rule is obvious — parties seeking grants for private purposes usually draw the bills making them. If they do not make the language explicit and clear to pass everything that is intended to be passed, it is their own fault, while on the other hand such a construction has a tendency to prevent parties from inserting ambiguous language for the purpose of taking by ingenious interpretation and insinuation, that which cannot be obtained by plain and express terms.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““All grants of this description are construed against the grantee. Koth-ing passes but what is conveyed in clear and explicit language; and, as the rights here claimed are derived entirely from the act of congress, the donation stands on the same footing asa grant by the public to a private company, the terms of which must be plainly expressed in the statute, and, if not thus expressed, they cannot be implied.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““One equal moiety, in alternate sections, of the public lands remaining unsold, and not otherwise disposed of, incumbered, or appropriated, in a strip five miles in width on each side of said river, to be selected within said territory by an agent or agents to be appointed by the governor thereof, subject to the approval of the secretary of the treasury of the United States.” 9 St. c. 103, § 1.”
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.