green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 2×
16.2 score
“where questions arise which affect titles to land it is of great importance to the public that when they are once decided they should no longer be considered open. such decisions become rules of property, and many titles 1185 may be injuriously affected by their change.”
Treatment trajectory · 1904 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1904
1965
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 14 distinct citers.
examined
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
United States v. Nicholson
where questions arise which affect titles to land it is of great importance to the public that when they are once decided they should no longer be considered open. such decisions become rules of property, and many titles may be injuriously affected by their change.
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
United States v. Milner
where questions arise which affect titles to land it is of great importance to the public that when they are once decided they should no longer be considered open. such decisions become rules of property, and many titles 1185 may be injuriously affected by their change.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Gp Vincent II v. the Estate of Edgar Beard
This application of res judicata does not apply if the litigation does not adjudicate a party’s interests in the property itself. 4 Postal Telegraph Cable Co. v. City of Newport, 247 U.S. 464 , 474–75 (1918) (“The ground upon which, and upon which alone, a judgment against a prior owner is held conclusive against his successor in interest, is that the estoppel runs with the property, that the grantor can transfer no better right or title than he himself has, and that the grantee takes cum onere.” 5 (emphasis added)); Minn. Mining Co. v. Nat’l Mining Co., 70 U.S. (3 Wall.) 332, 334 (1…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Pressly v. United States
This case “stands on a quite different footing” because Minn. Mining Co. v. Nat’l Mining Co., 70 U.S. 332, 334 (1865); accord Arizona v. California, 460 U.S. 605, 620 (1983) (“Our reports are replete with reaffirmations that questions affecting titles to land, once decided, should no longer be considered open”), decision supplemented, 466 U.S. 144 (1984). -24- the Indiana Supreme Court has previously construed the PIRC’s legislative charter and the Richmond release, leaving “no doubt as to the proper application of the state’s law to the[] facts” of this case.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Bradley v. United States
This case “stands on a quite different footing” because Minn. Mining Co. v. Nat’l Mining Co., 70 U.S. 332, 334 (1865); accord Arizona v. California, 460 U.S. 605, 620 (1983) (“Our reports are replete with reaffirmations that questions affecting titles to land, once decided, should no longer be considered open”), decision supplemented, 466 U.S. 144 (1984). -24- the Indiana Supreme Court has previously construed the PIRC’s legislative charter and the Richmond release, leaving “no doubt as to the proper application of the state’s law to the[] facts” of this case.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Oldham v. United States
This case “stands on a quite different footing” because Minn. Mining Co. v. Nat’l Mining Co., 70 U.S. 332, 334 (1865); accord Arizona v. California, 460 U.S. 605, 620 (1983) (“Our reports are replete with reaffirmations that questions affecting titles to land, once decided, should no longer be considered open”), decision supplemented, 466 U.S. 144 (1984). -24- the Indiana Supreme Court has previously construed the PIRC’s legislative charter and the Richmond release, leaving “no doubt as to the proper application of the state’s law to the[] facts” of this case.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Ats Ford Drive Investment, LLC
This case “stands on a quite different footing” because Minn. Mining Co. v. Nat’l Mining Co., 70 U.S. 332, 334 (1865); accord Arizona v. California, 460 U.S. 605, 620 (1983) (“Our reports are replete with reaffirmations that questions affecting titles to land, once decided, should no longer be considered open”), decision supplemented, 466 U.S. 144 (1984). -24- the Indiana Supreme Court has previously construed the PIRC’s legislative charter and the Richmond release, leaving “no doubt as to the proper application of the state’s law to the[] facts” of this case.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Bradley v. United States
Minn. Mining Co. v. Nat’l Mining Co., 70 U.S. 332, 334 (1865); accord Arizona v. California, 460 U.S. 605, 620 (1983) (“Our reports are replete with reaffirmations that questions affecting -24- 263, 268 (Ind. 1944) (observing that “stare decisis . . . is most frequently applied where to disturb the prior ruling would probably affect real property and vested rights”).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Oldham v. United States
Minn. Mining Co. v. Nat’l Mining Co., 70 U.S. 332, 334 (1865); accord Arizona v. California, 460 U.S. 605, 620 (1983) (“Our reports are replete with reaffirmations that questions affecting -24- 263, 268 (Ind. 1944) (observing that “stare decisis . . . is most frequently applied where to disturb the prior ruling would probably affect real property and vested rights”).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Pressly v. United States
Minn. Mining Co. v. Nat’l Mining Co., 70 U.S. 332, 334 (1865); accord Arizona v. California, 460 U.S. 605, 620 (1983) (“Our reports are replete with reaffirmations that questions affecting -24- 263, 268 (Ind. 1944) (observing that “stare decisis . . . is most frequently applied where to disturb the prior ruling would probably affect real property and vested rights”).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Ats Ford Drive Investment, LLC
Minn. Mining Co. v. Nat’l Mining Co., 70 U.S. 332, 334 (1865); accord Arizona v. California, 460 U.S. 605, 620 (1983) (“Our reports are replete with reaffirmations that questions affecting -24- 263, 268 (Ind. 1944) (observing that “stare decisis . . . is most frequently applied where to disturb the prior ruling would probably affect real property and vested rights”).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Dan Carmichael McCarthan v. Director of Goodwill Industries-Suncoast, Inc.
But unlike rules of property, where court 46 Case: 12-14989 Date Filed: 03/14/2017 Page: 47 of 194 decisions are “retrospective and may affect titles purchased on the faith of their stability,” Garner, et al., supra, at 422 (quoting Minn. Mining Co. v. Nat’l Mining Co., 70 U.S. (3 Wall.) 332, 334 (1865)), the availability of collateral review does not prompt reliance.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Arizona v. California
(2×)
Minnesota Co. v. National Co., 3 Wall. 332, 334 (1866); United States v. Title Ins.
discussed
Cited "see"
Oregon Ex Rel. State Land Board v. Corvallis Sand & Gravel Co.
(2×)
See Minnesota Co. v. National Co., 3 Wall. 332, 334 (1866).
Minnesota Company
v.
National Company
v.
National Company
Supreme Court of the United States.
Jan 18, 1866.
Mr. Buel, for the defendants in error,
Grier.
Cited by 59 opinions | Published
Citer courts: Ninth Circuit (1)
[*334] The court having examined the case,
now delivered its opinion, and after stating the identity of the present case with the former, what was decided in the former and involved in this, and the history as above given, expressed himself in behalf of the Bench as follows:
This is another, and it is to be hoped the last attempt to persuade this court to reverse their decision in this case.
Where questions arise which affect titles to land it is of great importance to the public that when they are once decided they should no longer be considered open. Such decisions become rules of property, and many titles may be injuriously affected by their change. Legislatures may alter or change their laws, without injury, as they affect the future only; but where courts vacillate and overrule their own decisions on the construction of statutes affecting the title to real property, their decisions are retrospective and may affect titles purchased on the faith of their stability. Doubtful questions on subjects of this nature, when once decided, should be considered no longer doubtful or subject to change. Parties should not be encouraged to speculate on a change of the law when the administrators of it is changed. Courts ought not to be compelled to bear the infliction of repeated arguments by obstinate litigants, challenging the justice of their well-considered and solemn judgments.
The decision of the Supreme Court of Michigan, in conformity with the opinion of this court twice pronounced on the same title, is hereupon
Affirmed with costs.