Beardslee v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
387 F.2d 280 · 1967
Citation profile
23 federal appellate · 3 district · 6 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 34 later decisions — most recently March 2014 · most notably United States v. Dixon (1969), State v. Stafford (1968)
23 federal appellate · 3 district · 6 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. § 1112 · 18 U.S.C. § 1151 (Indian Crimes Act of 1976) · 18 U.S.C. § 1153 · 18 U.S.C. § 4244 · 18 U.S.C. § 549
Relies on Fay v. Noia · Dusky v. United States · Green v. United States · Spencer v. State of Texas a Bell · United States v. Ewell
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 34 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“§ 1151. Indian country defined Except as otherwise provided in sections 1154 and 1156 of this title, the term “Indian country”, as used in this chapter, means (a) all land within the limits of any Indian reservation under the jurisdiction ,of the United States government, notwithstanding the issuance of any patent, and, including rights-of-way running through the reservation, (b) all dependent Indian communities within the borders of the United States whether within the original or subsequently acquired territory thereof, and whether within or without the limits of a state, and (c) all Indian allotments, the Indian titles to which have not been extinguished, including rights-of-way running through the same. June 25, 1948, c. 645, 62 Stat. 757 ; May 24, 1949, c. 139, § 25, 63 Stat. 94 .”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““ * * * We regard clause (c) as applying to allotted Indian lands in territory now open and not as something which restricts the plain meaning of clause (a)’s phrase ‘notwithstanding the issuance of any patent’. Although this result tends to produce some checker-boarding in non-reservation land, it is temporary and lasts only until the Indian title is extinguished. The congressional purpose and intent seem to be clear. See State ex rel. Hollow Horn Bear v. Jameson, supra, pp. 184—185 of 95 N.W.2d.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Moss“Other courts almost uniformly have upheld federal jurisdiction or denied state jurisdiction, where the offense was committed by an Indian within the boundaries of a reservation but on particular land not owned by an Indian. Disestablishment thus is not effected by an allotment to an Indian or by conveyance of the Indian title to a non-Indian. (Emphasis added, footnote omitted.)”
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.