Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 253 F.1d 546 - McNee v. Whitehead

McNee v. Whitehead’s Empirical Analysis

253 F. 546 · 1918

Citation profile

3
cited by 3 later decisions
July 1932
most recently cited

2 federal appellate · 1 district ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 3 later decisions — most recently July 1932

2 federal appellate · 1 district ·

10191819201930decided

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.

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 3 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. ““It is conceded here that, if sections 1, 4, and 9 [Act of May 27, 1908, 35 Stat. 312 ] stood alone, the lands in question would be taxable; but it is argued that the definite prescription of ages of minority and the subjection of the lands of minors so defined to the orders of the local probate courts amounts to the imposition of another restriction upon alienation, with its accompanying exemption from taxation, notwithstanding the removal of ‘all restrictions’ in sections 1 and 9. AVe do not think the argument is sound. Where Congress so unmistakably manifested an intention to remove all restrictions [italics mine], it would take language more clear than that before us to indicate that it imposed another at the same time. In one sense the definition of minority and the commission of jurisdiction to the probate courts of the state constitute a limitation or restriction [italics mine] but the purpose was to avoid the rules, sometimes loosely applied, of estoppel, waiver, and ratification in respect of the acts of minors and to prevent premature majority by decree of a court or by marriage as provided by state statutes. This was but a recognition and strengthening of- the ordinary disabilities of minority in behalf of those of Indian blood, not an exception to the removal of restrictions upon alienation generally.””
    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.