United States v. Ramsey’s Empirical Analysis
271 U.S. 467 · 1926
Citation profile
72 federal appellate · 17 district · 34 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 167 later decisions (22 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 2022 · most notably McClanahan v. State Tax Commission of Arizona (1973), Williams v. United States (1946)
72 federal appellate · 17 district · 34 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.
Relationships
Relies on M'Culloch v. State of Maryland · United States v. Kagama · Donnelly v. United States · Choate v. Trapp · United States v. Rickert
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 167 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The State of Colorado, by its admission into the Union by Congress, upon an equal footing with the original States in all respects whatever, without any such exception as has been made in the Treaty with the Ute Indians and in the Act establishing a territorial government, has acquired criminal jurisdiction over its own citizens and other white persons throughout the whole of the territory within its limits, including the Ute Reservation, and that reservation is no longer within the sole and exclusive jurisdiction of the United States. The courts of the United States have, therefore, no jurisdiction to punish crimes within that reservation, unless so far as may be necessary to carry out such provisions of the Treaty with the Ute Indians as remain in force. But that Treaty contains no stipulation for the punishment of offenses committed by white men against white men. It follows that the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Colorado has no jurisdiction of this indictment * * *”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“when Congress provided in Section 1151 that Indian country should include “all Indian allotments, the Indian titles to which have not been extinguished”, it considered this description broad enough to encompass all Indian allotments while the title to same shall be held in trust by the Government, or while the same shall remain inalienable by the allottee without the consent of the United States.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““Indians are wards of the nation in respect of whom there is devolved upon the Federal Government ‘the duty of protection, and with it the power.’ United States v. Kagama, 118 U.S. 375 , 384 [ 6 S.Ct. 1109 , 1114, 30 L.Ed. 228 ]. The guardianship of the United States over the Osage Indians has not been abandoned; they are still wards of the nation, United States v. Osage County, 251 U.S. 128 , 133 [ 40 S.Ct. 100 , 101, 64 L.Ed. 184 (1919) ]; United States v. Nice, 241 U.S. 591 , 598 [ 36 S.Ct. 696 , 697, 60 L.Ed. 1192 (1916) ]; and it rests with Congress alone to determine when that relationship shall cease.” 271 U.S. at 469 , 46 S.Ct. at 560 .”
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.