Du Prat v. James’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

8 federal appellate · 9 state decisions

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

1. ““It has been held by the Supreme Court of the United States, and by this court, that a person cannot enter upon the actual possession of another for the purpose of laying foundation for a pre-emption claim to public lands of the United States; and it is claimed by the appellant that the same principle operated upon the parties to this controversy, and the defendants could not lawfully enter upon the possession of the plaintiff and make a valid location, nor acquire any rights as against the plaintiff; that the defendants could not, by a trespass, lay a foundation for obtaining the benefit of the act of Congress for the location of mining claims. The cases of Eilers v. Boatman, 8 Utah, 159 , 2 Pac. 66 , and Weese v. Barker, 7 Colo. 178 , 2 Pac. 919 , are cited to support this view; but we think a close examination of the act of Congress (Rev. St. §§ 2322, 2324) shows the reverse to be the better view. After declaring in section 2322 that the locators of all mining locations, so long as they comply with the laws of the United States, and with the state, territorial, and local regulations, not in conflict therewith, shall have the exclusive right of possession and enjoyment of all the surface included within the lines of their locations, and of all veins, etc.; and, after declaring in section 2324 that a certain amount of labor shall be performed in each year, it is provided in section 2324 that ‘upon a failure to comply with these conditions the claim or mine upon which such fa”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Fee v. Durham

2. ““Plaintiff insists that he performed the work required, and therefore did not forfeit his right to hold the ground. The court found that he performed in the year 1880 three days ’ labor, of the value of three dollars per day, and no more. The plaintiff claims that the court erred in excluding from its conclusion as to labor performed on the claim his time and expenses spent and incurred as follows: In October, 1879, plaintiff leased a mill located about a quarter of a mile from his claim, and from that time until December 25th made unsuccessful efforts to obtain water to operate the mill. About the latter part of December, 1879, or the first of January, 1880, the company owning a ditch let sufficient water run to the mill for the use of plaintiff, but he did not use or attempt to use the same, nor crush or attempt to crush rock or ore. Plaintiff went from Groveland to Sonora, in said county, twice, from Groveland to San Francisco once, and from Oakland to San Francisco five or six times to see the agent of the water company for the purpose of getting water to operate the mill, His personal expenses incurred, and the value of his time on those occasions, were from one hundred and fifty to four hundred dollars. We think that in no sense can these expenditures and values be said to be labor performed on the mine. ’ ’”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Kirkpatrick v. Curtiss