Boff v. Burney’s Empirical Analysis
168 U.S. 218 · 1897
Citation profile
50 federal appellate · 9 district · 25 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 113 later decisions (10 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 2023 · most notably Santa Clara Pueblo v. Martinez (1978), United States v. Wheeler (1978)
50 federal appellate · 9 district · 25 state decisions
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 United States v. Kagama · Samuel Worcester v. The State of Georgia · The Cherokee Nation v. The State of Georgia · Cherokee Nation v. Southern Kan Ry Co · Choctaw Nation 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 113 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The Indians and the territory which may have been specially set apart for their use are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, and Congress may pass such laws as it sees fit prescribing the rules governing the intercourse of the Indians with one another and with citizens of the United States, and also the courts in which all controversies to which an Indian may be a party shall be submitted. United States v. Rogers, 4 How. 567 , 11 L. Ed. 1105 ; United States v. Kagama, 118 U. S. 375 [6 Sup. Ct. 1109] 30 L. Ed. 228 ; Gon-Shay-ee, Petitioner, 130 U. S. 343 [9 Sup. Ct. 542] 32 L. Ed. 973 ; Cherokee Nation v. Southern Kansas R. Co., 135 U. S. 641 [10 Sup. Ct. 965] 34 L. Ed. 295 ; Roff v. Burney, 168 U. S. 218, 221 [18 Sup. Ct. 60] 42 L. Ed. 442 .””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“The citizenship which the Chickasaw legislature could confer it could withdraw. The only restriction on the power of the Chickasaw Nation to legislate in respect to its internal affairs is that such legislation shall not conflict with the constitution or laws of the United States, and we know of no provision of such constitution or laws which would be set at naught by the action of a political community like this in withdrawing privileges of membership in the community once conferred.”
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.