Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 77 F.1d 249 - Migeon v. Montana Cent. Ry. Co.

Migeon v. Montana Cent. Ry. Co.’s Empirical Analysis

77 F. 249 · 1896

Citation profile

18
cited by 18 later decisions
June 1990
most recently cited

11 federal appellate · 2 district ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 18 later decisions — most recently June 1990

11 federal appellate · 2 district ·

7018961900191019201930194019501960197019801990decided

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 St.louis Smelting and Refining Company v. Kemp. · Belk v. Meagher · Deffeback v. Hawke · Davis v. Wiebbold · Dower v. Richards

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. ““It was never intended that the court should weigh scales to determine the value of mineral found, as between a prior and subsequent locator of a mining claim, on the same lode.””
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““Where the same person, association, or corporation is in possession of a placer claim, and also a vein or lode included within the boundaries thereof, application shall be made for a patent for the placer claim, with the statement that it includes such vein or lode, and in such case a patent shall issue for the placer claim, subject to the provisions of this chapter, including such vein or lode, upon the payment of five dollars per acre for such vein or lode claim, and twenty-five feet of surface on each side thereof. The remainder of the placer claim, or any placer claim not embracing any vein or lode claim, shall be paid for at the rate of two dollars and fifty cents per acre, together with all costs, of proceedings; and where a vein or lode, such as is described in section twenty-three hundred and twenty, is known to exist within the boundaries of a placer claim, an application for a patent for such placer claim which does not include an application for the vein or lode claim shall be construed as a conclusive declaration that the claimant of the placer claim has no right of possession of the vein or lode claim; but where the existence of a vein or lode In a placer claim is not known, a patent for the placer claim shall convey all valuable mineral and other deposits within the boundaries thereof.”.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. ““A strict compliance with these provisions would not only be of great advantage to counsel in their arguments, but would materially aid the court, and lessen its labors. It is the duty of an appellant to particularly point out the alleged error upon which he relies, and to directly refer the court to the page of the transcript where the alleged erroneous ruling of the court is to be found.””
    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.