Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 112 U.S. 94 - Elk v. Wilkins

Elk v. Wilkins’s Empirical Analysis

112 U.S. 94 · 1884

Citation profile

323
cited by 323 later decisions
44
cited 44 times by the Supreme Court
17
states following
June 2026
most recently cited

82 federal appellate · 59 district · 39 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 323 later decisions (44 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 2026 · most notably Santa Clara Pueblo v. Martinez (1978), Iowa Mutual Insurance v. LaPlante (1987)

82 federal appellate · 59 district · 39 state decisions — followed in 17 states

410188418901900191019201930194019501960197019801990200020102020decided

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

Relies on Mansfield Ry Co v. Swan · Strauder v. West Virginia · Slaughter-House Cases the Butchers' Benevolent Association of New Orleans v. The Crescent City Live · Samuel Worcester v. The State of Georgia · Fletcher v. Peck

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 323 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “(a) The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth: (1) a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof; (2) a person born in the United States to a member of an Indian, Eskimo, Aleutian, or other aboriginal tribe. Provided, That the granting of citizenship under this subsection shall not in any manner impair or otherwise affect the right of such person to tribal or other property;”
    6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “Under the Constitution of the United States, as originally established, “Indians not taxed” were excluded from the persons according to whose numbers representatives and direct taxes were to be apportioned among the several States.... The Indian tribes ... were ... distinct political communities.... The members of those tribes owed immediate allegiance to their several tribes, and were not part of the people of the United States.”
    6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,”
    3 later decisions 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.