Gritts v. Fisher’s Empirical Analysis
224 U.S. 640 · 1912
Citation profile
54 federal appellate · 22 district · 22 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 175 later decisions (27 by the Supreme Court) — most recently November 2016 · most notably Mescalero Apache Tribe v. Jones (1973), United States v. Felipe Sandoval (1913)
54 federal appellate · 22 district · 22 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.
Appellate journey
reviewedthe decision below (from District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals)
Relationships
Relies on Heckman v. United States · Stephens v. Cherokee Nation · Cherokee Nation v. Ethan a Hitchcock · Hugh Wallace v. Mrs Ella Adams
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 175 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[The allotment and distribution of tribal lands and funds were] but an exertion of the administrative control of the government over the tribal property of tribal Indians, and was subject to change by Congress at any time before it was carried into effect and while the tribal relations continued.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“the lands and funds belonged to the tribe as a community, and not to the members severally or as tenants in common. The right of each individual to participate in the enjoyment of such property depended upon tribal membership, and when that was terminated by death or otherwise the right was at an end. It was not alienable or descendible.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“But that [allotment and distribution act] did not confer upon [the beneficiaries] any vested right such as 34 [474 F.3d 1343] 35 would disable Congress from thereafter making provision for admitting newly-born members of the tribe to the allotment and distribution.”
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.