Simmons v. Eagle Seelatsee’s Empirical Analysis
1965
Citation profile
20 federal appellate · 6 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 33 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently March 2002 · most notably Morton v. Mancari (1974), Delaware Tribal Business Committee v. Weeks (1977)
20 federal appellate · 6 district · 1 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.
Relationships
Applies 25 U.S.C. § 122 · 25 U.S.C. § 163 · 25 U.S.C. § 181 · 25 U.S.C. § 261 · 25 U.S.C. § 286 · 25 U.S.C. § 297 · 25 U.S.C. § 302 · 25 U.S.C. § 345
Relies on Conley v. Gibson · Baker v. Carr · Bolling v. Sharpe · Ng Fung Ho v. White · Upshaw v. United States
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 33 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““It is well settled that Congress has plenary control over Indian tribal relations and property and that this power continues after the Indians are made citizens, (citing cases) ‘After 1871 Congress turned from regulating Indian affairs by treaty to regulation by agreement and legislation. The plenary character of this legislative power over various phases of Indian affairs has been recognized on many occasions.’ Board of County Com’rs of Creek County v. Seber, 318 U.S. 705, 716 , 63 S.Ct. 920, 926 , 87 L.Ed. 1094 .” " * * * ' “Plenary authority over the tribal relations of the Indians has been exercised by Congress from the beginning and the power has always been deemed a political one, not subject to be controlled by the judicial department of the government. Lone Wolf v. Hitchcock, 187 U.S. (553) 565. ( 23 S.Ct. 216 , 47 L.Ed. 299 ).” ’ ””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““All persons who are in whole or in part of Indian blood or descent . . . who claim to have been unlawfully denied or excluded from any allotment or any parcel of land to which they claim to be lawfully entitled by virtue of any Act of Congress, may commence and prosecute or defend any action, suit, or proceeding in relation to their right thereto in the proper district court of the United States; and said district courts are given jurisdiction to try and determine any action, suit, or proceeding arising within their respective jurisdictions involving the right of any person, in whole or in part of Indian blood or descent, to any allotment of land under any law or treaty.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“After August 9, 1946, only enrolled members of the Yakima Tribes of one-fourth or more blood of such tribes shall take by inheritance or by will any interest in that part of the restricted or trust estate of a deceased member of such tribes which came to the decedent through his membership in such tribes or which consists of any interest in or the rents, issues, or profits from an allotment of land within the Yakima Reservation or within the area ceded by the treaty of June 9, 1855 (12 Stat. 951) * * *.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Groundhog v. Keeler
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.