Strepey v. Stark’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

5 federal appellate · 30 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 39 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““If at any time the locator of any mining claim heretofore or hereafter located, or his assigns, shall apprehend that his original certificate was de fective, erroneous, or that the requirements of the law had not been complied' with before filing; or shall he desirous of changing his surface boundaries or of taking in any part of an overlapping claim which has been abandoned; 'or in case the original certificate was made prior to the passage of this law, and he shall he desirous of securing the benefits of this act, such locator or his assigns may file an additional certificate, subject to the provisions of this act: provided, that such relocation does not interfere with the existing rights of others at the time of such relocation, and no such relocation or the record thereof shall preclude the claimant or claimants from proving any such titles as he or they may have held under previous location.” Cutting’s Comp. Laws. 1900, § 213.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Tonopah & Salt Lake Min. Co. v. Tonopah Min. Co. of Nevada

2. ““It is purely a creature of the statute, and, under the evident legislative intent, its purpose and functions are twofold: When duly recorded, it becomes notice to the world of the facts therein set forth, namely, a description of the premises claimed, and by whom and when located, in order to ■secure the discoverer or claimant against others seeking to locate the same ground, and is thus constructive notice of the claimant’s possession. In addition to this purpose which it is to serve, it would seem that by statute such certificate is made one of the steps requisite to constitute a perfected mining location.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Zerres v. Vanina

3. ““It is further to be observed that the rule in ejectment, that the plaintiff must recover, if at all, on the strength of his own title, and not upon the weakness of that of his adversary, is held not to apply to possessory actions for mining claims, where neither party has, strictly speaking, any legal title, but when the prior possession of plaintiff is pitted against the present possession of the defendant. ‘Practically, the real question involved in all such cases is: Which, as against the other, has the better right to mine the land in question ?’ ””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. National Milling & Mining Co. v. Piccolo