United States v. Pierce’s Empirical Analysis
235 F.2d 885 · 1956
Citation profile
30 federal appellate · 4 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 40 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently September 1989 · most notably United States v. Mottaz (1986), Pence v. Kleppe (1976)
30 federal appellate · 4 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. § 345 · 25 U.S.C. § 381 · 28 U.S.C. § 1353 · 28 U.S.C. § 2201
Relies on Hansberry v. Lee · Arenas v. United States · United States v. Powers · United States v. Arenas
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 40 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The contention is based upon an unreasonable limitation as to the purpose of the statute. So limited, the allotment might be made, but subject to such restrictions as would deny the Indian full possession of the land or illegal restraint as to its use, occupancy, or as to the produce therefrom, and he could do nothing about it but to complain with the hope of adjustment.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“The facts have not been alleged or developed to the extent that would give the district court jurisdiction to interfere with the Secretary of the Interior's administration of the tribal waters.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“shall have the same effect . . . as if such allotment had been allowed and approved by [the Secretary of the Interior].”
1 later decision 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.