Clairmont v. United States’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

47 federal appellate · 32 district · 25 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 153 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““Any Indian allotment while the title to the same shall he held in trust by the government, or while the same shall remain inalienable by the allottee without the consent of the United States.””

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Schaap v. United States · United States v. Luther

2. “[A]ll that part of the United States west of the Mississippi, and not within the states of Missouri and Louisiana, or the territory of Arkansas, and, also, that part of the United States east of the Mississippi river, and not within any state to which the Indian title has not been extinguished, for the purposes of this act, be taken and deemed to be the Indian country.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Evans v. Victor · State v. Romero

3. ““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 Constitution. 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 the authority of any state within whose limits are Indian tribes: These fundamental principles are of equal dignity, and neither must be 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.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Browning v. United States