Peoria Tribe of Indians v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
1968
Citation profile
20 federal appellate · 3 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 100 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 2013 · most notably Hebah v. United States (1970), United States v. Mescalero Apache Tribe (1975)
20 federal appellate · 3 district ·
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. N. Y. Rayon Importing Co. · Tulee v. State of Washington · United States v. Thayer-West Point Hotel Co. · United States v. Alcea Band · United States v. Shoshone Tribe of Indians
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 100 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Because the United States is not liable for interest on judgments in the absence of an express consent thereto, it cannot be liable for interest on the annual income payments not made. Therefore, if an interest rate measure is adopted by the Commission, it must be simple and not compound interest. [Id. at 473 n. 6, 88 S.Ct. at 1140 .]”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[w]hile the treaty bound the government to pay a 5 per cent annuity until the dissolution of the fund, which dissolution took place September 28,1852, when the sum of $ 37,180.58 — the amount of the fund resulting from actual sales — was paid over to the chiefs of the tribe, this dissolution terminated the stipulation for the annuity only protanto. If the government had originally accounted for the whole amount for which the court below held it to be liable, it would have paid 5 per cent upon this amount until the whole fund was paid over. The fund as to this amount being not yet distributed, the obligation to pay the 5 per cent annuity continues until the money is paid over.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““Indian treaties ‘are not to be interpreted narrowly, as sometimes may be writings expressed in words of art employed by conveyancers, but are to be construed in the sense in which naturally the Indians would understand them.’ United States v. Shoshone Tribe, 304 U.S. 111 , 116, 58 S.Ct. 794 , 82 L.Ed. 1213 (1938). ‘[T]hey are to be construed, so far as possible, in the sense in which the Indians understood them, and “in a spirit which generously recognizes the full obligation of this nation to protect the interests of a dependent people.” Tulee v. Washington, 315 U.S. 681 , 684-685, 62 S.Ct. 862 , 86 L.Ed. 1115 * * *’ ” 369 F.2d at 1006-1007, 177 Ct.Cl. at 771.”
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.