Barney v. Dolph’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

14 federal appellate · 6 district · 38 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 94 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““The only question within our jurisdiction presented by this record is whether, after a husband and wife had perfected their right to a patent for lands in Oregon, under Donation Act Sept. 27, 1850, e. 76, 9 Stat. 496 , and after the amendment of July 17, 1854 ( 10 Stat. 306 , c. 85), they could, before receiving the patent, sell and convey the lands so as to cut off the rights of the children or heirs of the husband of wife, in case of his or her death before the patent was actually issued. This depends upon the effect to be given the original act, when construed in connection with the amendment. The original act, after providing for a grant to the husband and’ wife of 640' acres of land, one-half to the husband and one-half to the wife in her own right, declared that: “In all cases where such married persons have complied with the provisions of this [the] act, so as to entitle them to the grant as above provided, whether under the late provisional government of Oregon, or since, and either shall have died before patent issued, the survivor and children or heirs of the deceased shall be entitled to the share or interest of the deceased in equal proportions, excejot where the deceased shall otherwise dispose of it by testament, duly and properly executed according to the laws of Oregon'’; and then, That all future contracts by any person or persons entitled to the benefits of this act, for the sale of the land to which he or they may be entitled under this act before he or th”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Godfrey v. Iowa Land & Trust Co.

2. ““A grant by Congress, under these circumstances, of the right to sell the land,'must have been intended to authorize those entitled to patents to convey in the same manner they could if the patent had been actually delivered. Any provision in the act transferring the title of the settler, in case of his death before receiving the patent, to his child, heir, or devisee, is palpably inconsistent with an unlimited power to sell and convey the land.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Gregory v. Keenan

3. ““When the right to a patent once becomes vested in a settler under the law, it was equivalent, so far as the government was concerned, to a patent actually issued”: Hall v. Russell, 101 U. S. 503 ( 25 L. Ed. 829 ); Quinn v. Ladd, 37 Or. 261 ( 59 Pac. 457 ).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Stansbery v. Church