Does it matter?

I still think your premise - that looking at Supreme Court cases to establish what is well known - is bogus. You have not responded to my counter-example based on the freedom of religion.

The rest of what I wrote is to get you to say what it is you mean, since it certainly wasn't clear from your original text that you were only referring to personal property rights, and specifically excluding real estate. Narrow down the topic enough and of course there won't be any Supreme Court cases, so I that's surely not what you mean to do.

You have further misrepresented court cases, seemingly to make it appear as if the findings are not all, or mostly, related to property law.

In addition, you somehow believe that my citations from Wikipedia (or one link away) are equivalent to a Lexis-Nexis search. I presume that is satire.

I see no reason to find people who group all of my examples under "property law" since I have no problems with assuming that some of them are mistaken. But it seems that you think that none of them fall under "property law."

For Horne v. USDA I found http://www.scotusblog.com/2015/04/argument-preview-regulatio... which says "The Hornes have drawn the support of the Federal Circuit Bar Association and property law scholars, worried over the impact on “takings” law generally of treating personal property differently from real property;". Therefore, that's one citation which places Horne v. USDA in the category of "property law."

FWIW, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Property_law lists "easements" as part of property law, so Marvin Brandt Revocable Trust v. United States deals with property law.

If you don't like Wikipedia, http://www.scotusblog.com/2014/03/opinion-analysis-victory-a... refers to that case saying:

> The dispute between the Roberts opinion and Justice Sotomayor’s dissent focused mainly on the meaning of a 1942 decision by the Court, and on whether railroad right-of-way ownership disputes should be treated by their own set of property laws rather than general property law principles.

and http://www.scotusblog.com/2014/01/argument-recap-oh-give-me-...

> He had Scalia on his side almost all the way (at least after the Justice’s initial taunt). But he and government lawyer Yang had to cope, repeatedly, with Justice Breyer’s sometimes awkward efforts to remember the phrases he had learned as a student of property law.

If you don't like scotusblog site, the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, as part of the progression of this case, also quotes refers to "property law" in https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/cert/12-1173 :

> On the other hand, the Cato Institute argues on behalf of the Trust that arbitrary changes in the principles of property law ultimately undermine landowners’ right to be secure in their property. ...

> The Northwest Legal Foundation (“NLF”) argues on behalf of the Trust that, under the common principles of property law, property is never impliedly conveyed; it is only expressly conveyed. The NLF argues that, because the Trust’s land patent does not contain an expressly reserved reversionary interest, the United States retaining a reversionary interest in the right-of-way is tantamount to a taking by the government. As such, the NLF argues that, without the procedural safeguards of government takings under a doctrine like eminent domain, allowing the United States to retain a reversionary interest, here, undermines the principles of property law and greatly expands the United States’ takings powers.

Thus, two of my examples do fall under the 'umbrella term 'property law'".

I fail to understand your ridicule.