Healing v. Jones’s Empirical Analysis
1962
Citation profile
51 federal appellate · 13 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 84 later decisions — most recently April 2025 · most notably Wichita and Affiliated Tribes of Oklahoma v. Donald P. Hodel, Secretary, Department of Interior Wichita and Affiliated Tribes of Oklahoma v. Donald P. Hodel, Secretary, Department of Interior Appeal of Caddo Tribe of Oklahoma (1986), Hamilton v. Nakai (1971)
51 federal appellate · 13 district ·
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
Applies 25 U.S.C. § 2 · 25 U.S.C. § 211 · 25 U.S.C. § 398D · 28 U.S.C. § 2284
Relies on United States v. Santa Fe Pacific Railroad · Hynes v. Grimes Packing Co · Shoshone Tribe of Indians v. United States · United States v. McGowan · United States v. Shoshone Tribe of Indians
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 84 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“It is just and fair in law and equity that the rights and interests of the Hopi and Navajo Indian Tribes be determined in the manner just stated, and that the respective titles of the two tribes in and to the lands of the 1882 reservation be quieted in accordance with that determination.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“for the use and occupancy of the Moqui (Hopi), and such other Indians as the Secretary of the Interior may see fit to settle thereon.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““3. Directing the defendants to forthwith grant and permit the joint use and possession of the surface, including all resources, in and to all of the executive order reservation of December 16, 1882, lying outside of the boundaries of land management district 6, as defined on April 24, 1943 to the Hopi Indian Tribe and Navajo Indian Tribe, share and share alike, and to remove such Navajo livestock from said lands as is necessary to accomplish such joint use without further damage to said lands.” “4. Directing the Clerk of this court to issue a writ of assistance to compel performance of the judgment of [the] court entered herein on September 28, 1962, and to allow the plaintiff, the Hopi Tribe, to enter upon said joint use area, and with the Navajo Tribe to jointly and equally use and benefit from the grazing forage and all other surface resources of said area, for the benefit of the respective members of said tribes until further order of this court.””
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.