Taylor v. Brown’s Empirical Analysis
147 U.S. 640 · 1893
Citation profile
22 federal appellate · 13 district · 27 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 78 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently December 2010 · most notably Tiger v. Western Investment Co. (1911), Aultman Taylor Co. v. . Syme (1900)
22 federal appellate · 13 district · 27 state decisions — followed in 17 states
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 Felix v. Patrick · Sheets v. Selden's Lessee · Arnold v. The United States · Pickering v. Lomax · Dutcher v. Wright
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 78 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““That any Indian born in the United States, who is the head of a family, or who has arrived at the age of twenty-one years, and who has abandoned, or may hereafter abandon, his tribal relations, shall, on making satisfactory proof of such abandonment, under the rules to be prescribed by the Secretary of the Interior, be entitled to the benefits of the act entitled ‘An act to secure homesteads to actual settlers on the public domain,’ approved May twentieth, eighteen hundred and sixty-two, and the acts amendatory thereof, except that the provision of the eighth section of the said act shall not be held to apply to entries made under this act: Provided, however, that the title to lands acquired by any Indian by virtue hereof shall not be subject to alienation or incumbrance, either by voluntary conveyance or the judgment, decree, or order of any court, and shall be and remain inalienable for a period of five years from the date of the patent issued therefor: Provided, 'that any such Indian shall be entitled to his'distributive share of all annuities, tribal funds, lands, and other property, the same as though he had maintained his tribal relations ; and any transfer, alienation, or incumbrance of an£ interest he may hold or' claim by reason of his former tribal relations shall be void.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““It would be tedious and unprofitable to attempt a review of the very numerous modern decisions, or to lay down any rules applicable to all cases. Every case must depend on its own circumstances. Where the construction of the language of a statute is doubtful, courts will always prefer that which will confirm rather than destroy any bona fide transaction or title. The intention and policy of the enactment should be sought for and carried out. Courts should never indulge in nice grammatical criticism of prepositions or conjunctions, in order to destroy rights honestly acquired.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. In re Babjak · State v. Herr““In computing the time during which the alienation of public land acquired by an Indian under the provisions of section 16 of the Act of March 3, 1875 ( 18 Stat. 420 , c. 131 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 14.80]), is forbidden, the day of the issue of the patent should be included."”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Baker v. Hammett
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.