Udall v. Littell’s Empirical Analysis
338 F.2d 537 · 1964
Citation profile
11
cited by 11 later decisions
January 1974
most recently cited
8 federal appellate · 3 district ·
Relationships
Relies on Williams v. Lee · Tilton v. Missouri Pacific Railroad · Alabama v. United States · Jones v. Healing · Healing v. Jones
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 11 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Congress in the Act of July 22, 1958, a special jurisdictional statute, had authorized this action, 72 Stat. 403 , while Jones was chairman of the Tribal Council. “In 1958, Senators Hayden and Goldwater had co-sponsored S. 692 to declare certain lands to be held by the United States in trust for the Hopi Indians and such other Indians as ‘heretofore have been settled thereon by the Secretary of the Interior.’ (See Exec. Order, December 6, 1882). The Navajo and the Hopi Tribes were authorized to commence or defend an action against each other for the purpose of determining their respective rights and interests in those lands. See H.R. Rep.No.1942, 85th Cong., 2d Sess.; 104 Cong.Ree. 13196, July 9, 1958. Healing v. Jones * * * followed. “The Department of Justice challenged the jurisdiction of the court to hear the case and otherwise sought to protect the Government against the ‘claims’ of the contending parties. Jones for the Navajo-Tribe successfully opposed the position of the Government. Healing v. Jones, 174 F.Supp. 211 (D.Ariz.1959). After extensive pretrial proceedings, the case was disposed of by a special three-judge court. The exhaustive opinion of Circuit Judge Hamley occupies some sixty-seven pages of the printed reports as he traced the history of the problems presented and explored the contentions of the respective tribes with regard to the ‘1882 Reservation/ The interest of Congressman, later Secretary, Udall was noted by Judge Hamley, 210 F.Supp. at 189. “It is”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissente.g. Littell v. Udall““12. Termination: (a) The Tribal Council may terminate this contract for good cause shown in respect to any one or all of second parties' services as General Counsel after giving sixty days’ notice to any of second parties in respect to which termination is sought, the said termination to become effective upon approval of the Commissioner of Indian Affairs, PROVIDED, HOWEVER, that in the event of disagreement between the parties as to the sufficiency of the cause, the question shall be submitted to the Secretary of the Interior. In such event, the parties of the second part or any one of them so terminated, shall receive compensation on the basis of the annual retainer provided for in Paragraph 4, above, prorated to the date of termination, together with such sums as may be properly due for expenses incurred prior to the date of termination; PROVIDED, FURTHER that if the services of Norman M. Littell or C. J. Alexander as General Counsel are so terminated by request of first party, the said Littell and Alexander and their assigns, if any, shall have the option to terminate the contract in its entirety, subject, however, to the provisions of Paragraph (b) hereof.” (Emphasis added.)”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Littell v. Udall““1. Terminating or cancelling the contract of plaintiff’s employment as General Counsel and Claims Attorney of the Navajo Tribe of Indians, which said contract was approved on November 15, 1957, as of August 5, 1957, as further amended and approved; “2. Suspending or otherwise improperly interfering with the performance by the plaintiff under and pursuant to said approved contract with all approved amendments thereto; and “3. Stopping or preventing the ordinary course of payment to him pursuant to R.S. § 2104 ( 25 U.S.C. § 82 ) of the agreed retainer fee due under said approved contract with all approved amendments thereto, including sums now due him for services performed thereunder during the months of September and October 1963.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Littell v. Udall
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.