478:
know the precise location of Neff. But
Mitchell gave no detail as to what steps he had taken to ascertain this. Deady, likely motivated by Mitchell's reputation for untrustworthiness, singled out the lack of detail in the affidavit as evidence that Mitchell had in fact taken no action to diligently search for Neff. Only after a diligent search had failed should Mitchell have been allowed to publish notice in a newspaper. Deady further calls out Mitchell's choice of a regional religious newspaper as not giving appropriate notice. A newspaper not well read in Oregon, let alone outside of the state, could hardly be expected to reach Neff. Deady's narrow approach focusing on whether Mitchell had done his due diligence represented his poor view of Mitchell and the high likelihood of fraud in the case. Dean Perdue thinks that Deady's narrow, notice based approach would have also worked well at the Supreme Court, but the Supreme Court took up the case with broad issues in mind.
350:, provides a description for Mitchell as an unethical and unskilled lawyer who used his significant charisma to find success, both in lawyering and later in his political career. Mitchell was more than willing to defraud his own clients. In one case, he acted as a guardian on behalf of a widow, wherein he moved to sell some of her land to supposedly pay for the expenses of the guardianship, turned around and bought the land himself at a cheap price and then resold it at market value for a sizeable profit. In another action, a client came to Mitchell looking for help with debt. Mitchell instead informed the creditors of the client's location, and was appointed as the debt collector. Mitchell then extorted the money out of his now victimized client.
487:
462:. His diaries have been preserved, and provide much information about his thoughts on the parties. He interacted with Mitchell and Pennoyer a fair amount, and had a negative view of each. However he held a much deeper dislike for Mitchell, whom he viewed as untrustworthy and immoral. Deady's diary entries concerning Mitchell (whom he started to refer to as Hipple) became increasingly acrimonious over the years, especially as Mitchell got deeper into politics. In 1873, Mitchell had been at the center of a corruption inquiry as part of his Senate election campaign. Mitchell characteristically escaped further investigation by bribing the Attorney General at the time,
259:, future governor of Oregon. Pennoyer held the land for eight years before Neff sought it back. Pennoyer lost in every action against Neff in an attempt to regain his land, including his action in Federal Court which would reach the Supreme Court. Pennoyer was extremely embittered by the process, and carried his hatred for the Supreme Court into his political career. There is speculation that the unethical Mitchell may have falsified the original lawsuit, which may have itself emerged from an illegal deal between Mitchell and Neff. In the end, Pennoyer was left without recourse due to Mitchell's faults, and Neff recovered the land.
31:
434:
been sheriff at the time of the sale. Though Neff had been prosperous in
California, the Oregon action was apparently important enough to move his entire family there for a year to get his land back. An extremely bitter series of actions followed, starting with Neff successfully having Pennoyer evicted. Pennoyer fought over the costs of the eviction, and lost again. Neff then sued Pennoyer for the damage to his land from the timbering operation and won again. The only small victory for Pennoyer was that the jury awarded effectively no damages. Pennoyer
334:
584:. Dean Purdue cites this as the climactic fraud of Mitchell's life, and wonders how far back his frauds went, speculating that the original claim against Neff emerged from a nefarious deal between Neff and Mitchell. Though Dean Purdue acknowledges that such things cannot be known, she further guesses that the discrepancy from the small fee paid and the large fee sought could also have been the result of a bribe paid by Mitchell to an official to speed up the processing of Neff's patent, which was a common practice at the time.
447:
361:. Neff however failed to pay Mitchell the $ 300 he was allegedly owed for his services. Whether Neff actually owed Mitchell the $ 300 is doubtable, given the poor ethics of Mitchell. Neff reportedly paid $ 6.05, a sizeable sum less than claimed. Although the work was rendered from 1862 into 1863, Mitchell waited until 1865 to sue, likely waiting until Neff was out of the state. Mitchell sued for $ 253.15 plus legal fees (some $ 4,300 in 2020, adjusted for inflation).
318:
365:
314:
law required that requests for land be made by
December 1, 1850. Neff appears to have missed the actual deadline to apply, as his application stated December 15, but December had been crossed out and September 15 had been put in its place (a date before the law had been passed). So began the first of numerous frauds that surrounded the case.
290:
418:(in property): the piece of land he had helped Neff obtain, worth an alleged $ 15,000 (about $ 440,000 in 2020, adjusted for inflation). Though the lower court judgement was issued in February 1866, Mitchell waited until July 22, 1866 to seek execution of the judgement. This likely aligned with the arrival of Neff's
325:
To gain title to the land, a settler had to work it for four years for their own use, and have two third parties sign affidavits that confirmed the land had been used properly and by the settler. Neff submitted one such affidavit in 1853 (too early), and another in 1856. The slow pace of frontier and
596:
jurisdiction is concerned. In a long series of United States
Supreme Court jurisprudence following this ruling, the Court has modified the territorial analysis without overruling its holding. Indeed, it seems the basis of a state's authority to decide the "status" of its citizens, for example, as in
433:
Neff appears to have harassed
Pennoyer about the property, and Pennoyer sought to firm up his title twice. The original deed had been signed five months late and by a deputy sheriff instead, so Pennoyer had a new deed signed by the current sheriff. Then he had another deed signed by the man who had
341:
Mitchell was a colorful character in his own right. Mitchell's real name was John Hipple, and he had come to Oregon after fleeing his 15 year old wife in
Pennsylvania. He stopped in California to leave his lover whom he had run away with, and then settled in Oregon, remarrying without divorcing his
477:
requires that defendants to a lawsuit be properly notified. In an ideal world, every defendant would be personally handed the summons of a lawsuit, but the expense and inefficiency of this method results in other options for giving notice. Mitchell, in his lawsuit, gave an affidavit that he didn't
429:
had bought the land, it was in fact
Mitchell himself who purchased the land, and then assigned it to Pennoyer a few days later. Pennoyer was an Oregon lawyer, active in land speculation and politics like Mitchell (though Mitchell was a Republican and Pennoyer a Democrat). Pennoyer ostensibly owned
313:
enacted on
September 27, 1850. The act provided an incentive for the development of land in the territories of the American West by conveying parcels of land to be used for further development. Single unmarried men, like Neff was at the time, could receive 320 acres (1.3 km) of free land. The
266:
over a defendant who isn't present in the state. Though Neff had settled in Oregon originally, he had allegedly moved to
California by the time of the lawsuit. The lower court narrowly ruled in Neff's favor, mostly based on Mitchell's untrustworthiness, but the Supreme Court turned the case into a
573:
Mitchell's political career took him to the Senate from 1872–1879, and again in 1885. The 1885 election had an unusual connection to the case: the judge of the lower court, Matthew Deady, came into possession of
Mitchell's love-letters from yet another affair. Mitchell's unexpected re-election,
600:
The doctrines governing personal jurisdiction in the United States have spawned a great deal of discourse within the Supreme Court of the United States with many cases finetuning and elaborating upon the concept, which has led to the test used today, in which the overall scope of the test for
523:, in which the property sought is within the boundaries of the state and the law presumes that property is always in the possession of the owner who therefore knows what happens to the property. Thus, attachment of the property before judicial proceedings makes constructive notice sufficient.
553:
without warranty. Pennoyer took his anger at the case and the Supreme Court into his political career. In his inaugural address upon being elected governor of Oregon, he railed against the Supreme Court and called for the justices to all be impeached, seeing the Supreme Court as a massive
601:
determining whether a court may exert personal jurisdiction over a party has been expanded in certain respects but narrowed in others. Nevertheless, in every case, the Supreme Court has ruled that such analyses must comport with the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
569:
decision, Neff had full ownership of his land once more. Neff vanished into obscurity after the Supreme Court case. As of the 1880 census, Neff was still living in Oregon. Neff's land is now some of the most valuable in Portland, situated in the downtown area.
548:
Pennoyer was extremely embittered by his multiple losses, in a case where he had effectively done nothing wrong. The fault seemed to lie with Mitchell, but Pennoyer never recovered any damages from Mitchell, likely because the property had been conveyed via
502:
jurisdiction. Mitchell had made the mistake of not attaching the parcel at the start of his action against Neff, instead waiting until after judgement had been rendered. The Court then laid out a broad argument for limited personal jurisdiction.
394:, a niche religious publication. Whether Mitchell went to any effort at all to determine Neff's actual location is also doubtable. Mitchell claimed that Neff was in California. This was true at some point, as Neff did move to
110:
No personal jurisdiction can be had over defendants who are physically absent from the state or have not consented to the court's jurisdiction; personal jurisdiction must comport with the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth
326:
government bureaucracy meant that the claim would not be fully processed for another decade. In an attempt to speed up the process and deal with the requisite paperwork, the illiterate Neff hired attorney
438:
for the property taxes he paid, he again lost. Pennoyer sought the land back in Federal Court, and again lost. He appealed this action to the Supreme Court, where he would face his final defeat.
240:
over property located within the state; it would have to be "brought under the control of the court" at the time the suit commenced otherwise quasi in rem jurisdiction would remain unavailable.
402:) indicated that Neff may have been living in Oregon until 1870. Due to Mitchell's ineffective service, Neff did not appear in court to contest the matter, and thus Mitchell won the lawsuit by
558:, whom he termed the head of a judicial oligarchy that had supplanted democracy. Judge Deady felt the speech made a fool of Pennoyer, and that he had expected such buffoonery from Pennoyer.
469:
Deady's narrow decision in favor of Neff is described by Dean Perdue as surprisingly modern, though quite conservative in its approach. Deady focuses mostly on due process. The
1094:
918:
297:
The case included a colorful cast of characters attempting to build lives on the Oregon frontier. Marcus Neff (born 1826) had arrived in Oregon in 1848 after taking the
455:
343:
1084:
466:. Deady's disgust at the entire affair was well chronicled in his diary, and his total lack of trust in Mitchell's character was reflected in his decision.
996:
651:
561:
Neff had also defended the property in an 1875 action from Mary McGuire (also spelled Maguire), who had bought a portion of it from Pennoyer and sought to
72:
412:(a judgement which may follow a defendant across state lines and is attached to his person). So to recoup his fee, Mitchell instead sought action
788:
384:
for the outstanding debt. Neff was supposedly not in Oregon at the time, and Mitchell ran a notice in a newspaper to notify Neff, thus giving
535:
dissented. His chief concerns were that the decision would invite litigation, upend property law, and that it impinged on state sovereignty.
494:
The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Neff, holding that for the trial court to have jurisdiction over the property, the property needed to be
430:
the property for the next eight years, used some of the land for timber, sold a portion, and paid the property taxes. Neff returned in 1874.
247:
near downtown Portland, Oregon, secured by settler Marcus Neff. He had received legal aid to obtain the property from unscrupulous attorney
1079:
656:
715:
1089:
513:
is insufficient under US law to inform a person living in another state, except for cases affecting the personal status of an
764:
631:
606:
278:
273:
158:
225:
35:
474:
425:
Neff's land was put up for auction, and sold by the Sherriff for $ 341.60. Although the Supreme Court intimated that
829:
854:
634:
classes. While scholars disagree as to the extent that federal legal procedure remains bound to its direct legacy,
804:"Donation Land Claim Act, spur to American settlement of Oregon Territory, takes effect on 27 September 1850"
592:
Many aspects of the Court's ruling in this case have subsequently been overturned for cases in which personal or
803:
759:. Martha Minow, Mark S. Brodin, Thomas O. Main, Alexandra D. Lahav (6th ed.). New York. pp. 669–679.
395:
244:
321:
The approximate location of the parcel of land, along the Willamette river, in what is now downtown Portland.
267:
sweeping treatise on personal jurisdiction. The Supreme Court's decision laid the groundwork for the complex
232:
over a party domiciled out-of-state if that party is served with process while physically present within the
1043:
337:
John H. Mitchell, the unscrupulous lawyer at the heart of the case. Taken sometime between 1865 and 1880.
486:
390:
580:, was decried by Deady. Mitchell would later be sentenced to six months in prison for his role in the
581:
255:, and Neff's land was sold off to pay the debt. Mitchell himself bought the land, and assigned it to
237:
1025:
358:
1060:
306:
271:
of personal jurisdiction. It has been substantially modified in subsequent decisions, especially
1007:
310:
1000:
463:
263:
229:
154:
146:
64:
716:"Sin, Scandal, and Substantive Due Process: Personal Jurisdiction and Pennoyer Reconsidered"
277:, but some parts remain. It is frequently taught to first year law students in the study of
1016:
243:
The case emerged from a dispute regarding a parcel of land, which now includes portions of
178:
406:. Given that Mitchell asserted Neff was not physically in the state, he could not be sued
251:, who sued Neff in 1865 for an alleged debt related to the legal service. Mitchell won by
8:
919:"The Fascinating Backstory to Pennoyer v. Neff That Almost Nobody Knows (or Cares) About"
506:
422:, which had been granted in March but likely took some months to travel to the frontier.
413:
373:
301:
by wagon. He became one of the first men to speculate over land in Oregon. Neff sought a
597:
a divorce without having personal jurisdiction over the respondent remains undisturbed.
490:
Justice Field, who authored the expansive and influential opinion for the Supreme Court.
782:
495:
470:
426:
388:
by publication. The effectiveness of this service was likely low, as it was run in the
385:
256:
142:
638:
is a seminal sample of early jurisdictional jurisprudence. Many law students consider
353:
Neff was ultimately successful in procuring property on the ancestral homeland of the
770:
760:
354:
166:
669:
615:
403:
381:
327:
252:
248:
262:
The legal issues of the case turned on whether the court in question could extend
662:
333:
134:
67:
892:
550:
126:
1065:: The Hidden Agenda of Stephen J. Field Seton Hall Law Review Volume 28 Book 1
774:
289:
1073:
576:
555:
514:
510:
459:
293:
Sylvester Pennoyer, taken more than a decade later while Governor of Oregon.
1034:
754:
499:
435:
398:. However, Neff's own affidavit in another case regarding the same parcel (
347:
298:
100:
Error to the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Oregon
593:
562:
419:
408:
195:
Field, joined by Waite, Clifford, Swayne, Miller, Davis, Strong, Bradley
302:
268:
233:
83:
317:
532:
446:
170:
1052:
948:
The Death of the Constitutional Law of Personal Jurisdiction: From
982:
554:
governmental overreach. He held especial rage for Chief Justice
364:
519:
79:
30:
498:
before the start of litigation, whereupon the trial court has
642:
one of the hardest cases to read in their law school career.
236:. More importantly, the court imposed a procedural limit on
983:
Official Website of the Supreme Court of the United States
228:
in which the Court held that a state court can only exert
450:
Judge Matthew Deady, who wrote the lower court decision.
963:
Pennoyer v. Neff: The Hidden Agenda of Stephen J. Field
456:
United States District Court for the District of Oregon
756:
Civil procedure : doctrine, practice, and context
1095:
United States Supreme Court cases of the Waite Court
652:
List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 95
714:
587:
1071:
712:
1085:United States personal jurisdiction case law
517:plaintiff (like divorce) or cases that are
380:Mitchell sued Neff in the Circuit Court of
224:, 95 U.S. 714 (1878) was a decision by the
795:
787:: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (
538:
916:
657:List of United States Supreme Court cases
917:Wadsworth, Tanner (September 13, 2019).
485:
445:
363:
332:
316:
288:
481:
1072:
801:
752:
618:" standard for personal jurisdiction.
368:The contested newspaper notice in the
987:
890:
708:
706:
574:despite publication of the affair in
441:
372:Note the summons authorized by Judge
18:1878 United States Supreme Court case
748:
746:
744:
742:
740:
738:
736:
734:
704:
702:
700:
698:
696:
694:
692:
690:
688:
686:
607:International Shoe Co. v. Washington
274:International Shoe Co. v. Washington
970:Civil Procedure Cases and Materials
802:Riddle, Margaret (August 9, 2010).
13:
940:
891:Cohen, Joshua (October 24, 2014).
226:Supreme Court of the United States
36:Supreme Court of the United States
14:
1106:
1080:United States Supreme Court cases
1003:714 (1878) is available from:
976:
731:
683:
621:
54:Sylvester Pennoyer v. Marcus Neff
965:28 Seton Hall Law Rev. 75 (1997)
29:
958:24 U.C. Davis L. Rev. 19 (1990)
588:Basis for personal jurisdiction
1090:1878 in United States case law
910:
884:
872:
847:
822:
713:Collins Perdue, Wendy (1987).
1:
972:Ninth Edition (2005) pp 69–73
676:
565:. McGuire lost, and with the
284:
7:
645:
370:Pacific Christian Advocate.
10:
1111:
855:"The Inflation Calculator"
830:"The Inflation Calculator"
543:
526:
475:United States Constitution
391:Pacific Christian Advocate
582:Oregon land fraud scandal
238:quasi in rem jurisdiction
212:
207:
199:
191:
186:
120:
115:
109:
104:
96:
91:
59:
49:
42:
28:
23:
753:Subrin, Stephen (2020).
359:Multnomah County, Oregon
45:Decided January 21, 1878
539:Subsequent developments
396:San Joaquin, California
630:is commonly taught in
491:
451:
377:
355:Multnomah Indian tribe
338:
322:
311:United States Congress
307:Donation Law of Oregon
294:
213:U.S. Const. Amend. XIV
968:Friedenthal, Jack H.
946:Borchers, Patrick J.
721:Washington Law Review
489:
464:George Henry Williams
449:
367:
336:
320:
292:
264:personal jurisdiction
230:personal jurisdiction
614:framework with the "
610:mostly replaced the
482:Opinion of the court
454:The decision of the
344:Wendy Collins Purdue
43:Argued October, 1877
1044:Library of Congress
897:fatpencilstudio.com
507:Constructive notice
374:Erasmus D. Shattuck
531:Associate Justice
492:
471:Due Process Clause
452:
442:Lower court ruling
427:Sylvester Pennoyer
386:service of process
378:
339:
323:
295:
257:Sylvester Pennoyer
131:Associate Justices
993:Pennoyer v. Neff
879:Pennoyer v. Neff,
810:. HistoryLink.org
766:978-1-5438-2206-9
217:
216:
167:Joseph P. Bradley
1102:
1063:Pennoyer v. Neff
1061:Tocklin, Adrian
1057:
1051:
1048:
1042:
1039:
1033:
1030:
1024:
1021:
1015:
1012:
1006:
990:
961:Tocklin, Adrian
934:
933:
931:
929:
923:Tanner Wadsworth
914:
908:
907:
905:
903:
888:
882:
876:
870:
869:
867:
865:
851:
845:
844:
842:
840:
826:
820:
819:
817:
815:
808:Timeline Library
799:
793:
792:
786:
778:
750:
729:
728:
718:
710:
670:Hess v. Pawloski
626:In law schools,
616:minimum contacts
404:default judgment
382:Multnomah County
328:John H. Mitchell
309:, an act of the
249:John H. Mitchell
221:Pennoyer v. Neff
155:Stephen J. Field
147:Samuel F. Miller
116:Court membership
33:
32:
24:Pennoyer v. Neff
21:
20:
1110:
1109:
1105:
1104:
1103:
1101:
1100:
1099:
1070:
1069:
1055:
1049:
1046:
1040:
1037:
1031:
1028:
1022:
1019:
1013:
1010:
1004:
979:
943:
941:Further reading
938:
937:
927:
925:
915:
911:
901:
899:
889:
885:
881:95 U.S. at 736.
877:
873:
863:
861:
853:
852:
848:
838:
836:
828:
827:
823:
813:
811:
800:
796:
780:
779:
767:
751:
732:
711:
684:
679:
663:Calder v. Jones
648:
632:civil procedure
624:
590:
546:
541:
529:
484:
444:
400:McGuire v. Neff
287:
279:civil procedure
169:
157:
145:
135:Nathan Clifford
87:
44:
38:
19:
12:
11:
5:
1108:
1098:
1097:
1092:
1087:
1082:
1068:
1067:
1058:
1026:Google Scholar
985:
978:
977:External links
975:
974:
973:
966:
959:
956:and Back Again
942:
939:
936:
935:
909:
893:"Free Parking"
883:
871:
846:
821:
794:
765:
730:
681:
680:
678:
675:
674:
673:
666:
659:
654:
647:
644:
623:
622:In law schools
620:
604:The 1945 case
589:
586:
551:quitclaim deed
545:
542:
540:
537:
528:
525:
509:as opposed to
483:
480:
443:
440:
436:counterclaimed
286:
283:
215:
214:
210:
209:
205:
204:
201:
197:
196:
193:
189:
188:
184:
183:
182:
181:
179:John M. Harlan
159:William Strong
143:Noah H. Swayne
132:
129:
127:Morrison Waite
124:
118:
117:
113:
112:
107:
106:
102:
101:
98:
94:
93:
89:
88:
77:
61:
57:
56:
51:
50:Full case name
47:
46:
40:
39:
34:
26:
25:
17:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1107:
1096:
1093:
1091:
1088:
1086:
1083:
1081:
1078:
1077:
1075:
1066:
1064:
1059:
1054:
1045:
1036:
1027:
1018:
1009:
1008:CourtListener
1002:
998:
994:
989:
986:
984:
981:
980:
971:
967:
964:
960:
957:
953:
949:
945:
944:
928:September 30,
924:
920:
913:
902:September 30,
898:
894:
887:
880:
875:
864:September 30,
860:
856:
850:
839:September 30,
835:
831:
825:
809:
805:
798:
790:
784:
776:
772:
768:
762:
758:
757:
749:
747:
745:
743:
741:
739:
737:
735:
726:
722:
717:
709:
707:
705:
703:
701:
699:
697:
695:
693:
691:
689:
687:
682:
672:
671:
667:
665:
664:
660:
658:
655:
653:
650:
649:
643:
641:
637:
633:
629:
619:
617:
613:
609:
608:
602:
598:
595:
585:
583:
579:
578:
577:The Oregonian
571:
568:
564:
559:
557:
556:John Marshall
552:
536:
534:
524:
522:
521:
516:
512:
511:actual notice
508:
504:
501:
497:
488:
479:
476:
472:
467:
465:
461:
460:Matthew Deady
457:
448:
439:
437:
431:
428:
423:
421:
417:
416:
411:
410:
405:
401:
397:
393:
392:
387:
383:
375:
371:
366:
362:
360:
356:
351:
349:
345:
335:
331:
329:
319:
315:
312:
308:
304:
300:
291:
282:
280:
276:
275:
270:
265:
260:
258:
254:
250:
246:
241:
239:
235:
231:
227:
223:
222:
211:
206:
202:
198:
194:
190:
187:Case opinions
185:
180:
176:
172:
168:
164:
160:
156:
152:
148:
144:
140:
136:
133:
130:
128:
125:
123:Chief Justice
122:
121:
119:
114:
108:
103:
99:
95:
90:
85:
81:
75:
74:
69:
66:
62:
58:
55:
52:
48:
41:
37:
27:
22:
16:
1062:
992:
988:
969:
962:
955:
951:
947:
926:. Retrieved
922:
912:
900:. Retrieved
896:
886:
878:
874:
862:. Retrieved
858:
849:
837:. Retrieved
833:
824:
814:December 31,
812:. Retrieved
807:
797:
755:
724:
720:
668:
661:
639:
635:
627:
625:
611:
605:
603:
599:
591:
575:
572:
566:
560:
547:
530:
518:
505:
500:quasi in rem
493:
468:
458:was made by
453:
432:
424:
414:
407:
399:
389:
379:
369:
352:
348:Richmond Law
342:first wife.
340:
324:
299:Oregon Trail
296:
272:
261:
242:
220:
219:
218:
208:Laws applied
174:
162:
150:
138:
92:Case history
71:
53:
15:
859:westegg.com
834:westegg.com
594:in personam
563:quiet title
420:land patent
409:in personam
245:Forest Park
1074:Categories
1053:OpenJurist
775:1150919201
677:References
346:, Dean of
305:under the
303:land grant
285:Background
269:common law
111:Amendment.
84:U.S. LEXIS
82:565; 1877
950:Pennoyer
783:cite book
533:Ward Hunt
171:Ward Hunt
60:Citations
991:Text of
954:Burnham
646:See also
640:Pennoyer
636:Pennoyer
628:Pennoyer
612:Pennoyer
567:Pennoyer
515:American
496:attached
192:Majority
1017:Findlaw
544:Parties
527:Dissent
473:of the
253:default
200:Dissent
105:Holding
1056:
1050:
1047:
1041:
1038:
1035:Justia
1032:
1029:
1023:
1020:
1014:
1011:
1005:
773:
763:
727:: 479.
520:in rem
415:in rem
177:
175:·
173:
165:
163:·
161:
153:
151:·
149:
141:
139:·
137:
80:L. Ed.
999:
234:state
97:Prior
1001:U.S.
930:2021
904:2021
866:2021
841:2021
816:2012
789:link
771:OCLC
761:ISBN
203:Hunt
86:2227
73:more
65:U.S.
357:in
78:24
68:714
63:95
1076::
997:95
995:,
952:to
921:.
895:.
857:.
832:.
806:.
785:}}
781:{{
769:.
733:^
725:62
723:.
719:.
685:^
330:.
281:.
932:.
906:.
868:.
843:.
818:.
791:)
777:.
376:.
76:)
70:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
