Red Lake and Pembina Bands, Jay H. Hoag and Associate Attorneys for in Docket 18-A v. Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa Indians, Docket 113, Little Shell Band of Chippewa Indians, Docket 191, and the United States. Little Shell Band of Chippewa Indians v. Red Lake, Pembina and White Earth Bands, Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa Indians and the United States’s Empirical Analysis
355 F.2d 936 · 1965
Citation profile
2 federal appellate ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 26 later decisions — most recently January 2006 · most notably United States v. Northern Paiute Nation (1968), Cherokee Nation v. United States (1966)
2 federal appellate ·
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 Brady v. State of Maryland · Cohen v. Beneficial Industrial Loan Corp. · Baltimore Contractors, Inc. v. Bodinger · Johnson v. Manhattan Railway Co. · United Mine Workers of America v. Benedict Coal Corporation
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 26 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Each such tribe, band, or other identifiable group of Indians may retain to represent its interests in the presentation of claims before the Commission an attorney or attorneys at law, of its own selection, * * *. [Emphasis supplied.]”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage“* * * The fees are specifically characterized ’as being ‘“for all services rendered in prosecuting the claim, in question”, and the Commission is told to set an amount which is “adequate compensation for services rendered and results obtained” (emphasis added). Congress thus made the performance of services a sine qua non for compensation. [Red Lake and Pembina Bands, supra, at 933]”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“Since this issue of statutory entitlement was within the Commission’s province, this court likewise has jurisdiction to delve into it. Section 20(b) of the Claims Commission Act, 25 U.S.C. § 70s(b), gives the court jurisdiction to review any “final determination” of the Commission, as well as certain interlocutory determinations of liability. The United States argues that the only final determinations subject to review are those deciding the merits of an Indian entity’s claim. But the Act does not say so in terms, and we know of no reason why the phrase “final determination” should be so restricted, or should be given less than its full meaning. The Act nowhere suggests that certain areas of Commission decision are to be left without appellate review and guidance; on the contrary, section 20(a) broadly empowers the Commission to certify to this court “any definite and distinct questions of law concerning which instructions are desired for the proper disposition- of the claim.” Nor does the legislative history in» tímate that this court’s power to review should cover fewer subjects than the Commission’s power to decide. And from the beginning the practice of the court has been to consider issues of all types which the Commission has resolved in the course of a proceeding (if the requisite finality has been present). * * * 1 [355 F.2d p. 939]”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.