Brader v. James’s Empirical Analysis
246 U.S. 88 · 1918
Citation profile
79 federal appellate · 32 district · 28 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 188 later decisions (29 by the Supreme Court) — most recently May 1976 · most notably Minnesota v. United States (1939), United States v. Candelaria (1926)
79 federal appellate · 32 district · 28 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.
Appellate journey
reviewedBrader v. James
Relationships
Relies on Choate v. Trapp · Heckman v. United States · Tiger v. Western Investment Co. · Ray Jones v. Patrick Meehan · United States v. Bob Celestine
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 188 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Notwithstanding Rachel James might have conveyed the homestead allotment after it descended to her, she was a tribal Indian, and as such still subject to the legislation of Congress enacted in discharge of the nation’s diity of guardianship over the Indians. Congress was itself the judge of the necessity of legislation for this purpose; it alone might determine when this guardianship should cease. * * * In view of the repeated decisions of this court, we can have no doubt of the constitutionality of such legislation. While the tribal relation existed, the national guardianship continued, and included authority to make limitations upon the rights which such Indians might exercise in respect to such lands as are here involved. This authority did not terminate with the expiration of the limitation upon the rights to dispose of allotted lands; the right and duty of Congress to safeguard the rights of Indians still continued. It has been frequently held by this court fhat the grant of citizenship is not inconsistent with the right of Congress to continue to exercise this authority by legislation deemed adequate to that end.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““We think a consideration of this act and of subsequent legislation in-pan materia therewith demonstrates the purpose of Congress to require such conveyances by full-blood Indians to be approved by the Secretary of the Interior. Tne sections of the Act of April 26, 1906, under consideration show a comprehensive system of protection as to such Indians. Under section 19, they are not permitted to alienate, sell, dispose of, or incumber allotted lands within 25 years unless Congress otherwise provides. The leasing of their lands, other than homesteads, for more than one year, may be made under rules and regulations prescribed by the Secretary of the Interior. And in case of the inability of a full-blood Indian, already owning a homestead, to work or farm the same, the Secretary may authorize the leasing of such homestead.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage““All conveyances made under this provision by heirs, who are full-blood Indians, are to be subject to the approval of the Secretary of the Interior, under such rules and regulations as he may prescribe.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Harris v. Bell · Israel v. Williams
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.