United States v. Creek Nation’s Empirical Analysis
295 U.S. 103 · 1935
Citation profile
79 federal appellate · 34 district · 8 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 340 later decisions (65 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 2023 · most notably United States v. Mitchell (1983), United States v. Mitchell (1980)
79 federal appellate · 34 district · 8 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 United States v. Arthur Lynah · Seaboard Air Line Railway Co. v. United States · Jacobs v. United States · United States v. North American Transportation & Trading Co. · United States v. State of Minnesota
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 340 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“* * * The tribe was a dependent Indian community under the guardianship of the United States, and therefore its property and affairs were subject to the control and management of that government. But this power to control and manage was not absolute. While extending to all appropriate measures for protecting and advancing the tribe, it was subject to limitations inhering in such a guardianship and to pertinent constitutional restrictions. It did not enable the United States to give the tribal lands to others, or to appropriate them to its own purposes, without rendering, or assuming an obligation to render, just compensation for them; for that “would not be an exercise of guardianship, but an act of confiscation.” Lane v. Pueblo of Santa Rosa, 249 U.S. 110 , 113, [ 39 S.Ct. 185 , 186, 63 L.Ed. 504 ]; Cherokee Nation v. Hitchcock, 187 U.S. 294 , 307-308 [, 23 S.Ct. 115 , 47 L.Ed. 183 ].”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“But not so of the disposals under the act of 1891. They were intended from their inception to effect a change of ownership and were consummated by the issue of patents, the most accredited type of conveyance known to our law. True, they rested on an erroneous application of the act of 1891 to the Creek lands in the strip; but, as that application was confirmed by the United States, the matter stands as if the act had distinctly directed the disposals. It was through them that the lands were taken; so the compensation should be based on the value at that time, . . .”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““Beit enacted * *. * 'That ju- • risdiction is hereby conferred upon the Court of Claims, with right of . appeal to the Supreme Court of the ■ United States, to consider and determine all legal and equitable claims against the United States of the Blackfeet * * .* and Gros Ventre Nations * * * for lands or hunting rights claimed to be existing in all said nations or tribes of Indians by virtue of the treaty of October 17, 1855 (Eleventh Statutes at Large, page 657 and the following) * * * with said Indians, and all claims arising directly therefrom, which lands and hunting rights are alleged to have been taken from the said Indians by the United States * * * and the final judgment and satisfaction thereof shall be in full settlement of all said claims.” ( 43 Stat. 21 .)”
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.