Missouri Kansas and Texas Railway Company v. Kansas Pacific Railway Company’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

26 federal appellate · 13 district · 41 state decisions

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

1. ““It is always to be borne in mind, in construing a congressional grant, that the act by which it is made is a law as well as a conveyance, and that such effect must be given to it as will carry out the intent of Congress. That intent should not be defeated by applying to the grant the'rules of the common law, which are properly applicable only to transfers between private parties.””

   5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Hall v. Russell · Northern Pac. R. v. St. Paul, M. & M. Ry. Co.

2. ““Ami be it further enacted: that there be and hereby is granted to the Northern Pacific Railroad Company * * * for the purpose of aiding in the construction of said railroad and telegraph line to the Pacific coast * ® ':s every alternate section of public land, not mineral, designated by odd numbers, to the amount of 20 alternate sections per mile on each side of said railroad line, as said company may adopt through ihe territories of file United States, and ten alternate sections per mile on each side of said railroad whenever it passe» through any state; and 'whenever on the line thereof the United States have full UUe. not reserved, sold. (¡ranted, or otherwise appropriated, and free from, pre-emption, or other claims or rights, at the, time the line of said ‘road is dej! niteli/ fixed, and a plat thereof filed in. the office of the commissioner of the genera/ land office; and whenever prior to said time, any of said sections, or parts of sections, shall have been granted, sold, reserved, occupied by homestead settlers, or pre-empted, or otherwise disposed of, other lands shall be selected by said company in lieu thereof. * ® ®””

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. United States v. Oregon & C. R. · Oregon & C. R. v. United States

3. ““■When the location was made and the sections granted ascertained, the title of the plaintiff took effect by relation as of the date of the act, except as to the reservations mentioned, the act having the same operation upon the sections as if they had been specifically described in it. “It is true that the act of 1864 enlarged the grant of 1862, but this was done, not by words of a new and an additional grant, but by a change in the words of the original act, substituting for those there used words of larger import. This mode was evidently adopted that the grant might be treated as if thus made originally; and therefore, as against the United States, the title of the plaintiff to the enlarged quantity, with the exceptions stated, must be considered as taking effect equally with the title of the less quantity as of the date of the first act.””

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Leo Sheep Co. v. United States · Kansas Pacific Ry. Co. v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe R. Co.