William McKay v. Agnes Kalyton’s Empirical Analysis
204 U.S. 458 · 1907
Citation profile
30 federal appellate · 17 district · 52 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 164 later decisions (27 by the Supreme Court) — most recently March 2015 · most notably United States v. Mitchell (1983), Oneida Indian Nation of New York State v. County of Oneida New York (1974)
30 federal appellate · 17 district · 52 state decisions — followed in 13 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. Rickert · Wisconsin Cent Co v. Price County · Felix v. Patrick · In re Heff · Boyd v. Nebraska ex rel. Thayer
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 164 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““That all persons who are in whole or in part of Indian blood or descent who, are entitled to an allotment of land under any law of Congress, or who claim to be so entitled to land under any allotment act or under any grant made by Congress, or who claim to have been unlawfully denied or excluded from any allotment or any parcel of land to which they claim to be lawfully entitled by virtue of any act of Congress, may commence and prosecute or defend any action, suit, or proceeding in relation to their right thereto, in the proper Circuit Court of the United States.” 28 Stats. 286, 305.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““As observed in the Smith Case, 194 U. S. 408 [ 24 Sup. Ct. 676 , 48 L. Ed. 1039 ], prior to the passage of the act of 1894, ‘the sole authority for settling disputes concerning allotments resided in the Secretary of the Interior.’ This being settled, it follows that prior to the act of Congress of 1894 controversies necessarily involving a determination of the title, and incidentally of the right to the possession of Indian allotments while the same were held in trust by the United States, were not primarily cognizable by any court, either state or federal.” McKay v. Kalyton, 204 U. S. 458 , 468, 27 Sup. Ct. 346 , 350 ( 51 L. Ed. 566 ).”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““Now, know ye that the United States of Ajmerica, in consideration of the premises and in accordance with the provisions of the eleventh section of said act of Congress of the 2d March, 1889, hereby declares that it does and will hold the land thus allotted (subject to all the restrictions and conditions contained in said eleventh section) for the period of twenty-five years in trust, for the sole use and benefit of the said Indian, or, in case of his decease, for the sole use of his heirs according to laws of the state or territory where such land is located, and that at the expiration of said period the United States will convey the same by patent to said Indian or his heirs, as aforesaid, in fee, discharged of said trust and free of all charge or incumbrance whatsoever: Provided that the President of the United States may, in his discretion, extend the said period by a term not exceeding ten years; and if any lease or conveyance shall be made of said lands, or contract made touching the same before the expiration of the time above mentioned, such lease or conveyance or contract shall be absolutely null and void.””
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.