J. E. Riley Inv. Co. v. Sakow’s Empirical Analysis
98 F.2d 8 · 1938
Citation profile
3 federal appellate · 2 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 7 later decisions — most recently January 1956
3 federal appellate · 2 district ·
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 30 U.S.C. § 28
Relies on Hammer v. Garfield Mining & Milling Co. · Cloninger v. Finlaison · Smith v. Cascaden · Moodey v. Dale Consol. Mines
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 7 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Ocotmber 27. 1930 Notice of Location “Notice here be given that I the undersigned here by locate and Claim 20. (twenty) across of ground for placer mining purposes described as follow to with being “/rom this Initial stake 1320 feet down stream to post no. 2. thence 660 feet cross the creek to post no. 3. thence 1320 feet up stream to post no. 4. thence 660 feet back to this Inintial Stake “this claim is situated on righ limit of Otter Creek a tributary of Iditarod River Otter recording precinct fourth divifion Territory of Alaska to be known “Good Hoppe Claim Wclter Sakow Locator By /s/ Walter Sakow “Vittniss /s/ Pete Miscovich “Gold Discovered Oct 27. 1930””
1 later decision 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.