Moore v. Robbins’s Empirical Analysis
96 U.S. 530 · 1877
Citation profile
62 federal appellate · 14 district · 105 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 352 later decisions (59 by the Supreme Court) — most recently May 2018 · most notably Hardin v. Jordan (1891), United States v. Ju Toy (1905)
62 federal appellate · 14 district · 105 state decisions — followed in 21 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 Johnson v. Towsley · Shepley v. Cowan · Hughes v. United States · United States v. Stone
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 352 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““After a patent for public lands is once issued, ail control of the executive department: over the title ceases. If fraud, mistake, error, or wrong has been done, the courts of justice present the only remedy. These courts ¡ire as open to the United States to sue for cancellation of the deed or reconveyance of the land as to individuals; and, if the government is the party injured, this is the proper course.””
14 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“when it is dear that these officers have, by a mistake of the law, given to one man the land which, on the undisputed facts, belonged to another.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““The officers of the land department are specially designated by law to receive, consider, and pass upon proofs presented with respect to settlements upon the public lands, with a view to secure rights of pre-emption. If they err in the construction of the law applicable to any case, or if fraud is practiced upon them, or they themselves are chargeable with fraudulent practices, their rulings may be reviewed and annulled by the courts when a controversy arises between private parties founded upon their decisions; but, for mere errors of judgment upon the weight of evidence in a contested case before them the only remedy is by appeal from one officer to another ‘ of the department.””
2 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.