United States v. Pollmann’s Empirical Analysis
1973
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 2 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 12 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently July 2004
2 federal appellate · 2 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 18 U.S.C. § 1162 · 18 U.S.C. § 1165 · 25 U.S.C. § 1301 (§ 201 of the Indian Civil Rights Act of 1968) · 25 U.S.C. § 461 · 43 U.S.C. § 1311 · 43 U.S.C. § 931
Relies on McClanahan v. State Tax Commission of Arizona · Shively v. Bowlby · Relford v. Commandant, U. S. Disciplinary Barracks · Williamson v. United States · 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 12 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Whoever, without lawful authority or permission, willfully and knowingly goes upon any land that belongs to any Indian or Indian tribe, band, or group and either are held by the United States in trust or are subject to a restriction against alienation imposed -by the United States, or upon any lands of the United States that are reserved for Indian use, for the purpose of hunting, trapping, or fishing thereon, or for the removal of game, peltries, or fish therefrom, shall be fined not more than $200 or imprisoned not more than ninety days, or both, and all game, fish, and peltries in his possession shall be forfeited.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““The exclusive right of taking fish in all the streams running through or bordering said reservation is further secured to said Indians; as also the right of taking fish at all usual and accustomed places, in common with citizens of the Territory, and of erecting temporary buildings for curing; together with the privilege of hunting, gathering roots and berries, and pasturing their horses and cattle upon open and unclaimed land.” [Emphasis added.]”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“Indian property owners should have the same protection as other property owners, for example, a private hunting club may keep nonmembers off its game lands or it may issue a permit for a fee. One who comes on such lands without permission may be prosecuted under State law but a non-Indian trespasser on an Indian reservation enjoys immunity. * * * * *”
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.