Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 82 U.S. 77 - Hutchings v. Low

Hutchings v. Low’s Empirical Analysis

82 U.S. 77 · 1872

Citation profile

151
cited by 151 later decisions
30
cited 30 times by the Supreme Court
17
states following
April 2006
most recently cited

29 federal appellate · 6 district · 45 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 151 later decisions (30 by the Supreme Court) — most recently April 2006 · most notably Pennoyer v. McConnaughy (1891), Light v. United States (1911)

29 federal appellate · 6 district · 45 state decisions — followed in 17 states

42018721880189019001910192019301940195019601970198019902000decided

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 Tarver v. Keach

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

  1. “' “Until such payment and entry, the acts of congress give to the settler only a. privilege of pre-emption in case the lands are offered for sale in the usual manner; that is, the privilege to purchase them in that event in preference' to others. The United States by those acts enter into no contract with the settler, and incur no obligation to any one, that the land occupied by him shall even be put up for sale. They simply declare that, in case any of their lands,are thrown open for sale, the .privilege to purchase them in limited quantities, at' fixed prices, shall be first given to parties who have settled upon and improved them. The legislation tlms adopted for the benefit of settlers was not intended to deprive congress of the power to make any other disposition of the lands before they are offered for sale, or to appropriate them to any public use.””
    5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““Tlie power of supervision possessed by the commissioner of the general land office over the acts of the register and receiver of the local land offices in the disposition of the public lands undoubtedly authorizes him to correct and annul entries of land allowed by them, where the lands are not subject to entry, or the parties do not possess the qualifications required, or have previously entered all that tlie law permits. The exercise of this power is necessary to the due administration of the land department. If an investigation of the validity of such entries were required in the courts of law before they could be canceled, the necessary delays attending the examination would greatly impair, if not destroy, the efficiency of the department. But the power of supervision and correction is not an unlimited or an arbitrary xiower. It can be exerted only when the entry was made upon false testimony or without authority of .law. It cannot be exercised so as to deprive any person of land lawfully entered and r>aid for. By such entry and payment the purchaser secures a vested interest in the property, and a right to a patent therefor, and can no more be deprived of it by order of the commissioner than ho can be deprived by such order of any other lawfully acquired property. Any attempted deprivation, in that way. of such interest, will be corrected whenever the matter is presented so that the' judiciary can act upon it.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “It is the only construction which preserves a wise control in the government over the public lands and prevents a general spoliation of them under the pretence of intended preemption and settlement. The settler being under no obligation to continue his settlement and acquire the title, would find the doctrine advanced by the defendant, if it could be maintained, that he was possessed by his settlement of an interest beyond the control of the government, a convenient protection for any trespass and waste in the destruction of timber or removal of ores, which he might think proper to commit during his occupation of the premises.”
    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.