United States v. Santa Fe Pacific Railroad’s Empirical Analysis
314 U.S. 339 · 1941
Citation profile
158 federal appellate · 62 district · 41 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 546 later decisions (39 by the Supreme Court) — most recently March 2023 · most notably Oneida Indian Nation of New York State v. County of Oneida New York (1974), County of Oneida New York v. Oneida Indian Nation of New York State New York (1985)
158 federal appellate · 62 district · 41 state decisions — followed in 13 states
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
reviewedUnited States v. Santa Fe Pac. R. (from Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals)
Relationships
Relies on United States v. Kagama · Samuel Worcester v. The State of Georgia · Choate v. Trapp · State of Minnesota v. Ethan Allen Hitchcock
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 546 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“by treaty, by the sword, by purchase, by the exercise of complete dominion adverse to the right of occupancy, or otherwise....”
32 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“an extinguishment cannot be lightly implied in view of the avowed solicitude of the Federal Government for the welfare of its Indian wards.”
9 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“must be regarded in law as the equivalent of a release of any tribal rights which they may have had in lands outside the reservation. They were in substance acquiescing in the penetration of white settlers on condition that permanent provision was made for them too. In view of this historical setting, it cannot now be fairly implied that tribal rights of the Walapais in lands outside the reservation were preserved. . . . Hence, acquiescence in that arrangement must be deemed to have been a relinquishment of tribal rights in lands outside the reservation and notoriously claimed by others.”
7 later decisions 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.