Dick v. United States’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

40 federal appellate · 30 district · 30 state decisions

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

1. “•‘In determining the extent of the power of Congress to regulate commerce with the Indian tribes, we are confronted, by certain principles that are deemed fundamental in our governmental system. One is that a state, upon its admission into the Union, is thereafter upon an equal footing with every other state, and has full and complete jurisdiction over all persons and things within its limits, except as it may be restrained by the provisions of the federal Constitution or by its own Constituí ion. Another general principle, based on the express words of the Constitution, is that Congress has power to regulate commerce with the Indian tribes, and such power is superior and paramount to tile authority of any state within whose limits are Indian tribes. These fundamental principles are of equal dignity, and neither must he so enforced as to nullify or substantially impair the other. In regulating commerce with Indian tribes, Congress must have regard to the general authority which the state has over all persons and things within its jurisdiction. So, the authority of the state cannot be so exerted as to impair the power of Congress to regulate commerce with the Indian tribes.””

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. United States v. Sandoval · Ammerman v. United States

2. ““If this case depended alone upon the federal liquor statute forbidding tbe introduction of intoxicating drinks into tbe Indian country, we should feel obliged to adjudge that tbe trial court erred in not directing a verdict for the defendant; for that statute, when enacted, did not intend by tbe words ‘Indian country’ to embrace any body of territory in which, at tbe time, tbe Indian title bad been extinguished, and over which and over tbe inhabitants of which (as was tbe case of Culdesac) tbe jurisdiction of tbe state, for all purposes of government, was full and complete. Bates v. Clark, 95 U. S. 204 [ 24 L. Ed. 471 ]; Ex parte Crow Dog, 109 U. S. 556 , 561 [ 3 Sup. Ct. 396 , 27 L. Ed. 1030 ].””

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. United States v. Haul · Gearlds v. Johnson

3. ““That at the time charged in the indictment there was no Indian country within the county of Nez Perce, or within the district of Idaho, known or designated as the Nez Perce Indian reservation; that the jurisdiction of the United States over all the country and territory embraced within the former reservation known and designated as the Nez Perce Indian reservation was, by the act admitting Idaho as a state into the Union, relinquished to the state of Idaho, excepting only that jurisdiction was retained in the United States over such Indian reservation until the Indians’ title to the lands included within the boundary of such reservation should be extinguished; that the Indian or. tribal title to the lands therein contained has, since the admission of the state, been extinguished by the allotment'of the lands in severalty to the individual Indians and by the purchase of the balance thereof by the United States, and that such allotments and purchase have been ratified by the public laws and acts of Congress; * * * that various town sites within the boundaries of the former reservation had been settled by citizens, and that title thereto transferred from the United States to the inhabitants; and that municipal governments, namely, villages, had been organized and were in existence within the boundaries of the former reservation; and that the same, nor any part thereof, is not, and was not at the times mentioned in the indictment, Indian country.””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Browning v. United States · United States v. Webb