Leavenworth Lawrence and Galveston Railroad Company v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
92 U.S. 733 · 1875
Citation profile
83 federal appellate · 39 district · 88 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 464 later decisions (85 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 2017 · most notably United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co. (1906), The Cherokee Nation v. The State of Georgia (1831)
83 federal appellate · 39 district · 88 state decisions — followed in 25 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 The Cherokee Nation v. The State of Georgia · De La Fayette Wilcox v. John Jackson · United States v. Cook · Dubuque & Pacific Railroad v. Litchfield
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 464 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““As long ago as the Cherokee Nation v. Georgia, 5 Pet. 1 , 8 L. Ed. 25 , this court said that, the Indians are acknowledged to have the unquestionable right to the lands they occupy, until it shall be extinguished by a voluntary cession to the government; and recently, in United States v. Cook, 19 Wall. 591 , 22 L. Ed. 210 , that right was declared to be as sacred as the title of the United States to the fee. * * * With the ultimate fee vested in the United States, coupled with the exclusive privilege of buying that right, the Indians were safe against intrusion,, if the government discharged its duty to them. * * * We are not without authority that the general words of this grant do not include an Indian reservation.””
7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““If the terms of an act of Congress, granting public lands, ‘admit of different meanings, one of extension and the other of limitation, they must be accepted in a sense favorable to the grantor. And, if rights claimed under the government be set up against it, they must be so clearly defined that there can be no question of the purpose of Congress to confer them.’ Leavenworth, etc., Railroad v. United States, 92 U. S. 733 , 740 [ 23 L. Ed. 634 ].””
6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““ ‘ There be and is hereby granted’ are words of absolute donation, and import a grant in preesenti. This court lias held that they can have no other meaning, and the land department, on this interpretation of them, has uniformly administered every previous similar grant. They vest a present title in the state of Kansas, [the grantee named,] though a survey of the lands and a location of the road are necessary to give precision to it and attach it to any particular tract. The grant then becomes certain, and by relation has the same effect upon the selected parcels, as if it had specifically described them.” 92 ü. íá. 741.”
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.