Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 154 F.1d 712 - United States v. Moore

United States v. Moore’s Empirical Analysis

154 F. 712 · 1907

Citation profile

4
cited by 4 later decisions
2
cited 2 times by the Supreme Court
1
states following
November 1927
most recently cited

1 federal appellate · 1 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 4 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently November 1927

1 federal appellate · 1 state decisions

20190719101920decided

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 Ray Jones v. Patrick Meehan · Cherokee Nation v. Ethan a Hitchcock · In re Heff · New York Indians v. United States · Eastern Band of the Cherokee Indians v. United States

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

  1. ““In construing any treaty between the United States and an Indian tribe, it must always ... be borne in mind that the negotiations for the treaty are conducted, on the part of the United States, an enlightened and powerful nation, by representatives skilled in diplomacy, masters of a written language, understanding the modes and forms of creating the various technical estates known to their law, and assisted by an interpreter employed by themselves; that the treaty is drawn up by them and in their own language; that the Indians, on the other hand, are a weak and dependent people, who have no' written language and are wholly unfamiliar with all the forms of legal expression, and whose only knowledge of the terms in which the treaty is -framed is that imparted to them by the interpreter employed by the United Stages; and that the treaty must therefore be construed, not according to the technical meaning of its words to learned lawyers, but in the sense in which they would naturally be understood by the Indians.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““been reached with much reluctance, for no doubt it would be better for the Indians to sustain the plaintiff’s contention. They are not qualified to cope with the white race, and the result of this decision, should it be sustained in the higher courts, will no doubt be prejudicial to their best interests. It is to .be regretted that so commendable an effort should not have been made before the agreement received the approval of Congress, or at least before the rights of purchasers had attached; but the Supreme Court has said that the courts are not concerned with these considerations.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “That in case said Indians so elect to remain ett said Columbia Reservation the Secretary of the Interior shall cause the quantity of land therein stipulated to be allowed them to be selected in as compact form as possihle. the same when so selected to be held for the exclusive use and occupation of said Indians, and the remainder of said reservation to be thereupon restored to the public domain, and shall be disposed of to actual settlers,”
    1 later decision 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.