Udall v. Littell’s Empirical Analysis
366 F.2d 668 · 1966
Citation profile
18 federal appellate · 8 district · 3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 36 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently December 2013 · most notably Westinghouse Electric Corp. v. Kerr-McGee Corp. (1978), United States v. Consolidated Mines & Smelting Co. (1971)
18 federal appellate · 8 district · 3 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
Relies on United States v. Birdsall · Boesche v. Udall · Parker v. Richard · Spilker v. Hankin · Adams v. Murphy
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 36 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“In charging the Secretary with broad responsibility for the welfare of Indian tribes, Congress must be assumed to have given him reasonable powers to discharge it effectively. Courts have taken this approach with respect to various aspects of Indian life, recognizing that “[this] statute furnishes broad authority for the supervision and management of Indian affairs and property commensurate with the obligation of the United States.” In our opinion the very general language of the statutes makes it quite plain that the authority conferred upon the Commissioner of Indian Affairs was intended to be sufficiently comprehensive to enable him, agreeably to the laws of Congress and to the supervision of the President and the Secretary of the Interior, to manage all Indian affairs, and all matters arising out of Indian relations, with a just regard, not merely to the rights and welfare of the public, but also to the rights and welfare of the Indians, and to the duty of care and protection owing to them by reason of their state of dependency and tutelage.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““* -x- -x- -jijjjg was more than ‘inter-mixture’ or ‘commingling’ of Tribal assets with his own assets; it was an affirmative use — or misuse — of assets of the Tribe for his own interest.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Littell v. Hickle“does not by itself indicate the Executive Branch lacks authority to act under other (earlier enacted) statutory provisions”
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.