Wirth v. Branson’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

19 federal appellate · 2 district · 44 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 118 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““The rule is well settled, by a long course of decisions, that when public lands have been surveyed and placed in the market, or otherwise opened to private acquisition, a person who complies with all the requisites necessary to entitle him to a patent in a particular lot or tract is to be regarded as the equitable owner thereof, and the land is no longer open to location. The public faith has become pledged to him, and any subsequent grant of the same land to another party is void, unless the first location or entry be vacated and set aside. This was laid down as a principle in the case of Lytle et al. v. State of Arkansas et al., 9 How. 314 [ 13 L. Ed. 153 ], and has ever since been adhered to. See Stark v. Starr, 6 Wall. 402 [ 18 L. Ed. 925 ], Subsequent cases which have seemed to be in conflict with these have been distinguished from them by the fact that something remained to be done by the claimant to entitle him to a patent, such as the payment of the price, the payment of the fees of surveying, or the like. The proper distinctions on the subject are so fully stated in the case of Stark v. Starr, supra, Frisbie v. Whitney, 9 Wall. 187 [ 19 L. Ed. 668 ], the Yosemite Valley Case, 15 Wall. 77 [ 21 L. Ed. 82 ], Railway Company v. McShane, 22 Wall. 444 [ 22 L. Ed. 747 ], and Shepley et al. v. Cowen et al., 91 U. S. 330 [ 23 L. Ed. 424 ], that it would be supererogation to go over the subject again.””

   7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Payne v. Central Pacific Railway Co. · Tegarden v. Le Marchel

2. ““A party who has complied with all the terms and conditions which entitle Slim to a patent for a particular tract of public land acquires a vested interest therein, and is to be regarded as the equitable owner thereof. While his entry or location remains in full force and effect, his rights thereunder will not be defeated by the issue of a patent to another party for the same tract.””

   5 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Benson Mining & Smelting Co. v. Alta Mining & Smelting Co. · Olive Land & Development Co. v. Olmstead

3. ““This patent was issued for the S. E. Y± instead of the N. E. Yi as recorded; sent a certificate of that fact to E. B. Olemson at Lebanon, Illinois. See his letter of 19th of May, 1826.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Slattery v. Heilperin