Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 76 U.S. 89 - Railroad Company v. Fremont County

Railroad Company v. Fremont County’s Empirical Analysis

76 U.S. 89 · 1869

Citation profile

22
cited by 22 later decisions
8
cited 8 times by the Supreme Court
7
states following
March 1926
most recently cited

2 district · 9 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 22 later decisions (8 by the Supreme Court) — most recently March 1926

2 district · 9 state decisions

501869187018801890190019101920decided

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

  1. ““In this connection it may be proper to refer to Act March 2, 1855, c. 147, 10 Stat. 634 , which is ‘An Act for the relief of purchasers and locators of swamp and overflowed lands.’ It provides, in substance, that patents shall be issued to purchasers or locators who had made entries of the public lands claimed as swamp lands prior to the issue of patents to the states, under the second section of the swamp land grant of 1850, and providing for an indemnity to the states. Conflicts had arisen between these purchasers, and locators, on the one side, and the states claiming the land under the swamp land grants. As these lands were not withdrawn from sale till the filing of the lists in the local land office, they were supposed to be open to entry or location, and a portion of them had been thus appropriated. On the other hand, the states claimed that the grant to them by the act of Congress was- a grant in praesenti, and vested the title immediately. Such had been the opinion expressed by the land commissioner, and also by the Attorney General. The embarrassments of the land department growing out of this controversy between the states and the settlers were removed by this act of 1855, which confirmed the title of the settlers, and compensated the states for the land of which they were deprived. The second section of the act provides that compensation should be allowed to the states only in respect to subdivisions taken up by the settlers, which were swamp lands within the true”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “be applied, exclusively, as far as necessary,”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “otherwise appropriated/ and were ‘reserved”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority

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.