Harris v. Bell’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

37 federal appellate · 7 district · 29 state decisions

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

1. ““By the Act of 1908, which imposed the restrictions on alienation and contained the leasing provision, Congress further declared, in section 9, ‘that the death of any allottee * shall operate to remove all restrictions upon the alienation of said allottee’s land: Provided, that no conveyance of any interest of any full-blood Indian heir in such land shall be valid unless approved by the court having jurisdiction of the settlement of the estate of said deceased allottee.’ In the absence of the proviso, it would be very plain that on the death of the allottee all restrictions on the alienation of the land allotted to him were removed. But the proviso is there, and cannot be disregarded. It obviously limits and restrains what precedes it. In exact words it puts full-blood Indian heirs in a distinct and excepted class, and forbids any conveyance of any interest of such an heir in such land unless, it be approved by the court named. In other words, as to that class of heirs the restrictions are not removed, but merely relaxed or qualified to the extent of sanctioning such conveyances as receive the court’s approval. Conveyances without its approval fall within the ban of the restrictions. That the agency which is to approve or not is a state court is not material. It is the agency selected by Congress, and the authority confided to it is to be exercised in giving effect to the will of Congress in respect of a matter within its control. Thus in a practical sense the court, in exerc”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. United States v. Gypsy Oil Co. · Locke v. McMurry

2. ““Act of April 26, 1906, declaring that all conveyances by heirs who are fullblood Indians are to be subject to the approval of the Secretary of the Interior, under such rules and regulations as he may prescribe applies where the allotment was not made to an Indian then living, but in the name of one who had died, for the benefit of his heirs.””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. United States v. Hellard · Israel v. Williams

3. ““ If in this instance the same court had had jurisdiction of the guardianship of the minor heirs and of the settlement of the estate of the deceased allottee, no embarrassment would have ensued; but as that was not the case, the question arises, whether it was essential that the guardian’s conveyance, directed and approved, as it was, by the court having control of the guardianship, should also be approved by the court having jurisdiction of the settlement of the deceased allottee’s estate? The Circuit Court of Appeals answered in the negative; and, while the question is not free from difficulty, we think that solution of it is right.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Stewart v. Keyes