Gibson v. Chouteau’s Empirical Analysis
80 U.S. 92 · 1871
Citation profile
99 federal appellate · 29 district · 107 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 377 later decisions (52 by the Supreme Court) — most recently March 2016 · most notably Massachusetts v. Mellon (1923), United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co. (1906)
99 federal appellate · 29 district · 107 state decisions — followed in 29 states
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 Lindsey v. Hawes · Wheeler v. Harris
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 377 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“With respect to the public domain, the Constitution vests in Congress the power of disposition and of making all needful rules and regulations. That power is subject to no limitations.”
12 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““By the doctrine of relation is meant that principle by which an act done at one time is considered by a'fiction of law to have been done at some antecedent period. It is usually applied where several proceedings are essential to. complete a particular transaction, such as a conveyance or deed. The last proceeding which consummates the conveyance is held for certain purposes to take effect by relation as of the day when the first proceeding was had.””
6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. McCune v. Essig · McCune v. Essig““But neither in a separate suit in a federal court nor in an answer to an action of ejectment in a state court can the mere occupation of the demanded premises by plaintiffs or defendants for the period prescribed by the statute of limitations of the state be held to constitute a sufficient equity in their favor to control the legal title subsequently conveyed to others by the patent of the United States, without trenching upon the power of Congress in the disposition of the public lands. That power eanont be defeated or obstructed by any occupation of the premises before the issue of the patent, under' state legislation, in whatever form or tribunal such occupation be asserted.”
5 later decisions 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.