Ray Jones v. Patrick Meehan’s Empirical Analysis
175 U.S. 1 · 1899
Citation profile
161 federal appellate · 83 district · 98 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 607 later decisions (91 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 2023 · most notably Santa Clara Pueblo v. Martinez (1978), United States v. Wheeler (1978)
161 federal appellate · 83 district · 98 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 United States v. Kagama · Samuel Worcester v. The State of Georgia · The Cherokee Nation v. The State of Georgia · Liverpool & Great Western Steam Co. v. Phenix Insurance
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 607 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[T]he 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.”
25 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The language used in treaties with the Indians should never be construed to their prejudice. If words be made use of, which are susceptible of a more extended meaning than their plain import, as connected with the tenor of the treaty, they should be considered as used only in the latter sense.... How the words of the treaty were understood by this unlettered people, rather than their critical meaning, should form the rule of construction.”
9 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence““The clear result of this series of decisions is that, when the United States, in a treaty with an Indian tribe and as a part of the consideration for the cession by the tribe of a tract of country to thei United 'States, makes a reservation to a chief or other member of a tribe of a specified number of sections of land, whether already identified, or to be surveyed and located in the future, the treaty itself converts the reserved sections into individual property; the reservation, unless accompanied by words limiting its effect, is equivalent to a present grant of a complete title in fee simple; and that title is alienable by the grantee at his pleasure, unless the United States, by a provision of the treaty, or of an act of 'Congress, have expressly or impliedly prohibited or restricted its alienation.””
2 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.