McCurdy v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
246 U.S. 263 · 1918
Citation profile
75 federal appellate · 18 district · 12 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 168 later decisions (26 by the Supreme Court) — most recently January 2009 · most notably Board of Com'rs of Jackson County Kan v. United States (1939), Willcuts v. Bunn (1931)
75 federal appellate · 18 district · 12 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
Relies on United States v. Rickert · Calumet Grain Elevator Company v. City of Chicago · Brader v. James · Northwestern Laundry v. City of Des Moines
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 168 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The Secretary is authorized to prescribe the rules and regulations under which such releases shall be made; but he is not given authority to exercise control of any property in which the funds released may thereafter be invested, or otherwise to create with the release funds a governmental instrumentality for the protection of the Osages. * * ■ * While an Indian is still a ward of the Nation, there is power in Congress even to reimpose restrictions on property already freed; * * * but Congress did not confer upon the Secretary of the Interior authority to exercise such power under the circumstances of this ease or to give to property purchased with released funds immunity from state taxation.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““While an Indian is still a ward of the Nation, there is power in Congress even to reimpose restrictions on property already freed; Brader v. James, decided this day, ante, 88; but Congress did .not confer upon the Secretary of the Interior authority to exercise such power under the circumstances of this case or to give to property purchased with released funds immunity from state taxation.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““This conveyance is made and accepted with the understanding, and under the condition that the above described property is to be and remain inalienable and not subject to transfer, sale or incumbrance for a period of eighteen years from the 1st day of July. 1913, except by and with the express consent and approval of the Secretary of the Interior, or his successor in office.””
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.