No 15387’s Empirical Analysis
1956
Citation profile
1 federal appellate · 15 district · 12 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 41 later decisions — most recently September 2009 · most notably Your Food Stores, Inc. (NSL) v. Village of Espanola (1961), Red Lake Band of Chippewa Indians v. State (1976)
1 federal appellate · 15 district · 12 state decisions — followed in 11 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
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 1162 · 18 U.S.C. § 548 · 25 U.S.C. § 13 · 25 U.S.C. § 2 · 25 U.S.C. § 476 · 28 U.S.C. § 1360 · 8 U.S.C. § 1401 (§ 301 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (McCarran-Walter))
Relies on United States v. Kagama · United States v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. · Samuel Worcester v. The State of Georgia · The Cherokee Nation v. The State of Georgia · Lone Wolf v. Ethan a Hitchcock
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 41 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"It would seem clear that the Constitution, as construed by the Supreme Court, acknowledges the paramount authority of the United States with regard to Indian tribes but recognizes the existence of Indian tribes as quasi sovereign entities possessing all the inherent rights of sovereignty excepting where restrictions have been placed thereon by the United States itself." 231 F.2d at 92 .”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“"We . . . hold that not only do the Indian Tribal Courts Have inherent jurisdiction over all matters not taken over by the federal government, but that federal legislative action and rules promulgated thereunder support the authority of the Tribal Courts." Id. at 96. (Emphasis supplied).”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““Section 2. The Derivation of Indian Powers. From the earliest years of the Republic the Indian tribes have been recognized as ’distinct, independent political communities’ * * * and as such qualified to exercise powers of self-government, not by virtue of any delegation of powers from the Federal Government, but rather by reason of their original tribal sovereignty. * * * * * * “The whole course of judicial decision on the nature of Indian tribal powers is marked by adherence to three fundamental principles: (1) An Indian tribe possesses, in the first instance, all the powers of any sovereign state. (2) Conquest renders the tribe subject to the legislative power of the United States and, in substance, terminates the external powers of sovereignty of the tribe, e. g. its power to enter into treaties with foreign nations, but does not by itself affect the internal sovereignty of the tribe, i. e. its powers of local self-government. (3) These powers are subject to qualification by treaties and by express legislation of Congress, but save as thus expressly qualified, full powers of internal sovereignty are vested in the Indian tribes and in their duly constituted organs of government.””
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.