Crews v. Burcham’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

18 federal appellate · 6 district · 2 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 65 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““By the treaty of October 27, 1832, made by the United States; through commissioners, with the Pottawatomie Tribe of Indians and the state of Indiana and Michigan Territory, said nation ceded to the United States their title and interest in and to their lands in the state of Indiana and Illinois, and the Michigan Territory south of Grand river. Many reservations were made in favor of Indian villagers, jointly and to individual Pottawato-mies. The reservations are by sections, amounting probably to 100, lying in various parts of the ceded country. As to these, the Indian title remained as it stood before the treaty was made; and •to complete the title as to the reserved lands the United States agreed that they would issue patents to the respective owners. One of these reservees was the chief Pet-chi-co, to whom was ■ reserved two sections. The treaty also provides That the foregoing reservations shall be selected under the direction of the President of the United States, after the land shall have been surveyed, and the boundaries shall correspond with the public surveys.5 In February, 1833, by a deed in fee simple, Pet-chi-co conveyed to Alexis Coquillard and David PI. Colerick, of the state of Indiana, ‘all those sections of land lying in the state aforesaid, in the region of country or territory ceded by the treaty of 27th October, 1832.5 The grantor covenants lawful authority to sell and convey the same and he furthermore warrants the title against himself and his heirs. Un”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Conway v. United States · Godfrey v. Iowa Land & Trust Co.

2. ““It is true that no title to the particular lands in question could rest in the reservee, or in his grantee, until the location by the President, and, perhaps the issuing of the patent; but the obligation to make the selection as soon as the lands were surveyed, and to issue the patent, is absolute and imperative, and founded on a valuable and meritorious consideration. The lands reserved constituted part of the compensation received by the Pottawatomies for the relinquishment of their right of occupancy to the government. The agreement was one which, if entered into by an individual, a court of chancery would have inforced by compelling the selection of the lands and the conveyance in favor of the reservee, or, in case he had parted with his interest, in favor of his grantees. And the obligation is not the less imperative and binding because entered into by the government. The equitable right, therefore, to the lands in th.e grantee of Beison, when selected, was perfect; and the only objection of any plausibility is the technical one as to vesting of the legal title.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Godfrey v. Iowa Land & Trust Co.

3. “Where patents for public lands have been or may be issued, in pursuance of any law of the United States, to a person who had died, or who hereafter dies, before the date of such patent, the title to the land designated therein shall inure to and become vested in the heirs, devisees, or assignees of such deceased patentee as if the patent had issued to the deceased person during his life.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Larkin v. Paugh