Bell v. Apache Maid Cattle Co.’s Empirical Analysis
94 F.2d 847 · 1938
Citation profile
1 federal appellate · 2 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 5 later decisions — most recently October 1995
1 federal appellate · 2 district · 2 state decisions
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
Applies 16 U.S.C. § 471
Relies on United States v. Grimaud · Light v. United States
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 5 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“If we assume that the contract, instead of providing for the relinquishment of the grazing privileges for the year 1931 and sufficient for 960 head of cattle, was to be a continuing obligation for an indefinite time in the future, the court would be confronted with still greater difficulties. The allotment of grazing area is exclusively for the Forest Service. The courts cannot interfere with this prerogative. It is a fact, as the prescribed regulations also indicate, that the number of cattle the range will support varies from year to year and also that different areas will furnish grazing for different numbers of cattle. The Forest Service might not agree with the court as to the extent and character of range required to graze 960 head of cattle. Furthermore, there is no description of the range rights of the appellees which appellant seeks to have relinquished or conveyed. . So many of the elements involved are so indefinite and uncertain that the lower court properly held that the facts stated did not entitle appellant to a decree of specific enforcement.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Perkins v. Bergland““There is no law which gives an individual or corporation the right to graze stock upon the National Forest lands except under the regulations promulgated by the Department of Agriculture. * * * “Appellant knew or was required to know that under the regulations appellees could not convey grazing rights to 'him. All they could do was to relinquish. Appellant, after entering into the contract, should then have made his application to the Forest Service which alone had authority to make any allotment.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Bassett v. Ryan
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.