Harris v. Bell’s Empirical Analysis
250 F. 209 · 1918
Citation profile
4 federal appellate · 4 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 14 later decisions (4 by the Supreme Court) — most recently August 1960
4 federal appellate · 4 district · 2 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
Relationships
Relies on Washington v. Miller · Brader v. James · Lykins v. McGrath · Pickering v. Lomax · State v. Stoll
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 14 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““It is a cardinal rule of the construction of statutes that specific legislation in relation to a particular class or subject is not affected by general legislation in regard to many classes of subject, of which that covered by the specific legislation is one, unless it clearly appears that the general legislation is so repugnant to the special legislation that the legislators must be presumed to have intended thereby to modify or repeal it; but the special and the general legislation must stand together, the former as the law of the particular class or subject, and the latter as the general law upon other subjects or classes within its terms. State v. Stoll, 17 Wall. 425 , 436, 21 L. Ed. 650 ; Washington v. Miller, 235 U. S. 422 , 427, 428, 35 S. Ct. 119 , 59 L. Ed. 295 ; Harris v. Bell, 250 F. 209 , 216, 162 C. C. A. 345 ; Stoneberg v. Morgan, 246 F. 98 , 101, 158 C. C. A. 324 ; Sweet v. United States, 228 F. 421 , 427, 143 C. C. A. 3 ; Priddy v. Thompson, 204 F. 955 , 958, 959, 123 C. C. A. 277 , 280, 281; Christie Street Commission Co. v. United States, 136 F. 326 , 333, 69 C. C. A. 464 , 471.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““That all lands other than homesteads allotted to members of the Five Civilized Tribes from which restrictions have not been removed may be leased by the allottee if an adult, or by guardian or curator under order of the proper probate court if a minor or incompetent, for a period not to exceed five years, without the privilege of renewal: Provided, 1hat leases of restricted lands for oil, gas or other mining purposes, leases of restricted homesteads for more than one year, and leases of restricted lands for periods of more than five years, may be made, with the approval of the Secretary of the Interior, under rules and regulations provided by the Secretary of the Interior, and not otherwise: And provided further, that the jurisdiction of the probate courts of the state of Oklahoma over lands of minors and incompetents shall be subject to the foregoing provisions, and the term minor or minors, as used in this act, shall include all males under the age of twenty-one years and all females under the age of eighteen years.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Rogers v. Rogers““Those sections are circumstantial and contain the elements of decision. Section 2 defines minors, male and female, and provides for the disposition of their property under, as stated, rules and regulations provided by the Secretary of the Interior, and declares that the jurisdiction of the probate courts of the state shall be subject to its provisions. And section 6 declares to what • courts the property of minors so defined shall be subject. Explicitly such property is made ‘subject to the jurisdiction of the probate courts of the state of Oklahoma.’ The qualification ‘except as otherwise specifically provided by law’ means, as said by the Circuit Court of Appeals, ‘federal law, not state law.’””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Rogers v. Rogers
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.