Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 696 F.2d 88 - Union Pacific Land Resources Corp. v. Moench Investment Co.

Union Pacific Land Resources Corp. v. Moench Investment Co.’s Empirical Analysis

696 F.2d 88 · 1982

Citation profile

18
cited by 18 later decisions
5
states following
April 2016
most recently cited

7 federal appellate · 2 district · 6 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 18 later decisions — most recently April 2016

7 federal appellate · 2 district · 6 state decisions

1101982199020002010decided

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 Dames & Moore v. Regan · Burke v. Southern Pacific Railroad · United States v. Union Pacific Railroad · Connecticut v. Mohegan Tribe · Deffeback v. Hawke

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

  1. “Questions of statutory construction and legislative history traditionally present legal questions properly resolved by summary judgment.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
    e.g. Sun Co., Inc.(R & M) v. Browning-Ferris, Inc. · State Ex Rel. State Engineer v. Com'r of Public Lands
  2. “precluded the Railroad from retaining an interest in the mineral estate while selling the surface estate....”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
    e.g. Anschutz Land and Livestock Company, Inc., a Corporation v. Union Pacific Railroad Company, a Corporation, Moench Investment Company, Ltd., a Utah Limited Partnership, Plaintiff v. Union Pacific Railroad Company, a Corporation, Antelope Island Cattle Company, Inc., a Corporation v. Union Pacific Corporation, Antelope Island Cattle Company, Inc., a Corporation v. Union Pacific Railroad Company, a Corporation, Joseph O. Fawcett & Sons, Inc., a Utah Corporation, in Intervention/appellants. Anschutz Land and Livestock Company, Inc., a Corporation v. Union Pacific Railroad Company, a Corporation, Joseph O. Fawcett & Sons, Inc., a Utah Corporation, in Intervention/appellants. Champlin Petroleum Company, a Corporation v. Howells Livestock, Inc., a Corporation
  3. “the language [does not] suggest that the [Railroad] was required to convey its entire fee to a purchaser.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
    e.g. Anschutz Land and Livestock Company, Inc., a Corporation v. Union Pacific Railroad Company, a Corporation, Moench Investment Company, Ltd., a Utah Limited Partnership, Plaintiff v. Union Pacific Railroad Company, a Corporation, Antelope Island Cattle Company, Inc., a Corporation v. Union Pacific Corporation, Antelope Island Cattle Company, Inc., a Corporation v. Union Pacific Railroad Company, a Corporation, Joseph O. Fawcett & Sons, Inc., a Utah Corporation, in Intervention/appellants. Anschutz Land and Livestock Company, Inc., a Corporation v. Union Pacific Railroad Company, a Corporation, Joseph O. Fawcett & Sons, Inc., a Utah Corporation, in Intervention/appellants. Champlin Petroleum Company, a Corporation v. Howells Livestock, Inc., a Corporation

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.