Norton v. Larney’s Empirical Analysis
266 U.S. 511 · 1925
Citation profile
190 federal appellate · 50 district · 18 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 502 later decisions (21 by the Supreme Court) — most recently September 2018 · most notably Newman-Green, Inc. v. Alfonzo-Larrain (1989), Smith v. McCullough (1926)
190 federal appellate · 50 district · 18 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
reviewedthe decision below (from Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals)
Relationships
Relies on Osborn v. President Directors and Company of the Bank of the United States · Simon Taylor v. Joe Anderson · Shaw v. Railroad Co. · Robertson v. Cease
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 502 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““A reading of that act demonstrates that the material facts to be found, and, consequently, those alone which the findings of the Commissioner conclusively establish, are that the child was born between Blay 25, 1901, and March 4, 1905; that he was living on the latter date; and that his par ents were citizens of the Creek Tribe of Indians whose enrollment had been approved by the Secretary of the Interior prior to the date of the approval of the act. Inquiry as to whether the parents of the child were known by other names, and, if so, what those names were, as well as the precise numbers under which they were enrolled, was incidental or collateral to the direct issue presented by the statute, which was, Were they enrolled with the approval of the Secretary of the Interior at the proper time?””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Cotcha v. Ferguson · Cowe v. White““Under the Act of Congress of 1905, relating to enrollment of Indian children born to citizens of the Creek Tribe whose enrollment has been approved by the Secretary of the Interior, the identification pf the parents is not necessary, and therefore, the fact that the parents of an enrolled child are designated by the wrong names and enrollment numbers does not prevent the child from claiming the allotment of land to which he is entitled under his enrollment.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Cotcha v. Ferguson“unless the jurisdictional facts be supplied by amendment.”
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.