Big Eagle v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
300 F.2d 765 · 1962
Citation profile
11 federal appellate · 1 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 48 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently December 2015 · most notably United States v. Mason (1973), Capoeman v. United States (1971)
11 federal appellate · 1 district · 1 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
Applies 25 U.S.C. § 331 (White Earth Reservation Land Settlement Act of 1985) · 25 U.S.C. § 348 · 25 U.S.C. § 349 · 26 U.S.C. § 11 · 28 U.S.C. § 1346 (Federal Tort Claims Act)
Relies on Commissioner v. Sunnen · Choate v. Trapp · Squire v. Capoeman · Henry v. A. B. Dick Co. · Elk v. Wilkins
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 48 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““ * * *, but there is no indication in the legislative history of the amendment that it was to be so limited. The fact that this amendment antedated the federal income tax by 10 years also seems irrelevant. The literal language of the proviso evinces a congressional intent to subject an Indian allotment to all taxes only after a patent in fee is issued to the allottee. This, in turn, implies that, until such time as the patent is issued, the allotment shall be free from all taxes, both those in being and those which might in the future be enacted.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““This may be the letter but not the spirit of Capoeman which, like Blackbird (Mary Blackbird v. Com’r, 38 F.2d 976 (10th Cir., 1930), holds that the language of the Federal income tax law, broad as it is, does not extend to trust land income of noncompetent Indians even though there is no ‘definitely expressed’ exemption in the tax law. As Justice Murphy said in Oklahoma Tax Commission v. United States, 319 U.S. 598, 623 , 63 S.Ct. 1284, 1296 , 87 L.Ed. 1612 : “ <* * * it is immaterial that the legislative history of the Act is silent with regard to the tax status of Indian funds. We are dealing not with a word, nor with an act, but with a course of history.’ ””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“to transfer at the end of the trust or declaration of competency, the lands and cash received for oil and gas undiminished by any deductions levied thereon by the guardian or trustee. If the General Allotment Act implied nontaxability when it directed that trust property be turned over to the Indian after the trust period free of ALL charges, etc., certainly the implication is just the same in the Osage Allotment Act decreeing that ALL royalties and bonuses shall be turned over. If Federal income taxes are first withheld, ALL will not be turned over to the plaintiffs. [Emphasis supplied.]”
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.