United States v. Mares’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

3 federal appellate · 2 district · 2 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 15 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““The status of the Pueblo Indians of this territory has been subject to very full consideration by this court and by the Supreme Court of the United States, in a number of cases. United States v. Varela, I N. M. 503; U. S. v. Santistevan, 1 N. M. 583 ; Pueblo Indian Tax Case, 12 N. M. 139 [ 76 Pac. 507 ]; United States v. Joseph, 91 U. S. 619 [ 24 L. Ed. 2951 ; quoted in Ex parte Crow Dog, 100 U. S. 572 [ 3 Sup. Ct. 396 , 27 L. Ed. 1030 ]; U. S. v. Ritchie, 17 How. 523 , 538 [ 15 L. Ed. 236 ]. Prom these decisions, the first r.wo of which dealt with the very Pueblo here in question, their legal stand ing has been very definitely fixed. They have been judicially determined to be a people very different from the nomadic Apaches, Gomanehes-, and other tribes ‘whose incapacity for self-government required both for themselves and for the citizens of the country the guardian care of the general government.' They are not tribes within the meaning of the federal Intercourse Acts prohibiting settlement upon the land of ‘any Indian tribe.’ They are not wards of the government in the sense that this term has been used in connection with the American Indian. While Congress has as a mere gratuity from time to time provided agents and special attorneys for them, it has never attempted thereby to reduce them to a state of tutelage, or to put either them or their property under the‘charge or control of the government or its agents. On the contrary, they hold their lands and property by compl”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. United States v. Sandoval

2. ““That any person who shall sell, give away, dispose of, exchange, or barter any malt, spirituous, or vinous liquor, including beer, ale, and wine, or any ardent or other intoxicating liquor of any kind whatsoever, or any essence, extract, bitters, preparation, compound, composition, or any article whatsoever, under any name, label, or brand, which produces intoxication, to any Indian to whom allotment of land has been made while the title to the same shall be held in trust by the government, or to any Indian a ward of the government under charge of any Indian superintendent or agent, or any Indian, including mixed bloods, over whom, the government, through its departments, exercises guardianship, and any person who shall introduce or attempt to introduce any malt, spirituous, or vinous liquor, including beer, ale, and wine, or any ardent or intoxicating liquor of any kind whatsoever into the Indian country, which term shall include any Indian allotment while the title to the same shall be held in trust by the government, or while the same shall remain inalienable by the allottee without the consent of the United States, shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than sixty days, and by a fine of not less than one hundred dollars for the first offense and not less than two hundred dollars for each offense thereafter.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. United States v. Sandoval