Weeks v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
1975
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 1 district ·
Relationships
Applies 25 U.S.C. § 1181 · 25 U.S.C. § 1291 · 25 U.S.C. § 1292 · 25 U.S.C. § 1293 · 25 U.S.C. § 1294 · 25 U.S.C. § 991 · 28 U.S.C. § 1331 · 28 U.S.C. § 1346 (Federal Tort Claims Act)
Relies on Baker v. Carr · Goldberg v. Kelly · Stanley v. Illinois · Griffin v. People of the State of Illinois · Flast v. Cohen
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 6 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(T)he Congress was specifically requested by the Absentee Delawares and the Cherokee Delawares to delete the catchall provision (under which respondents would have claimed), and that Congress made the decision in response to the urging of those groups. On the record before us, we find that neither Congress nor its committees were made aware that the limitation . . . would exclude a group which had lived on the Kansas Delaware lands and which could trace their Delaware descendancy as the Kansas Delawares do. Instead the focus was on the Munsee Indian groups, including the Christian Indians, and paramount consideration was given to the Munsee situation in considering the proposed change in the distribution statute. ". . . It is disturbing that the Congress was apparently not aware of the Kansas Delaware group and we are persuaded that it was not the intent of Congress to exclude a group such as the Kansas Delawares from the distribution.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent“There is evidence in our record that at least some of the Cherokee and Absentee Delawares, themselves, were unaware of the existence of the Kansas Delawares at the time they testified before Congress. Mr. Townsend, the chairman of the Delaware Tribal Business Committee (Cherokee Delaware) and one of the principal witnesses before Congress urging the adoption of a distribution scheme utilizing only the 1906 and 1940 rolls, testified in the course of this litigation that he was unaware of the existence of the Kansas Delawares . . . .”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“Whereas some years ago a good many of the Delawares went down among the Southern Indians, and as there are still about two hundred of them there, and as they have reason to believe they will return soon, it is hereby agreed that eighty acres each be set apart for them, to be allotted to them as they return . . . .”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
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.