United States v. Jim’s Empirical Analysis
1973
Citation profile
25 federal appellate · 22 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 86 later decisions (10 by the Supreme Court) — most recently May 2011 · most notably Wilson v. Omaha Indian Tribe (1979), Delaware Tribal Business Committee v. Weeks (1977)
25 federal appellate · 22 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
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1252 · 30 U.S.C. § 188 · 30 U.S.C. § 226 · 43 U.S.C. § 161
Relies on Richardson v. Hynson, Westcott & Dunning, Inc. · Best v. Humboldt Placer Mining Co. · Shoshone Tribe of Indians v. United States · United States v. Shoshone Tribe of Indians · Moore v. Robbins
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 86 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“'Whatever title the Indians have is in the tribe, and not in the individuals, although held by the tribe for the common use and equal benefit of all the members.'”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Should oil or gas be produced in paying quantities within the lands hereby added to the Navajo Reservation, 37)4 per cent of the net royalties accruing therefrom derived by tribal leases shall be paid to the State of Utah: Provided, That said 37)4 per cent of said royalties shall be expended by the State of Utah for the health, education, and general welfare of the Navajo Indians residing in San Juan County. Planning for such expenditures shall be done in cooperation with the appropriate departments, bureaus, commissions, divisions, and agencies of the United States, the State of Utah, the County of San Juan in Utah, and the Navajo Tribe, insofar as it is reasonably practicable, to accomplish the objects and the purposes of this Act. Contribution may be made to projects and facilities within said area that are not exclusively for the benefits of the beneficiaries hereunder in proportion to the benefits received therefrom by said beneficiaries, as may be determined by the State of Utah through its duly authorized officers, commissions, and agencies.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent“Congress in 1933 did not create constitutionally protected property rights in the appellees. The Aneth Extension was added to a tribal reservation, and the leases which give rise to mineral royalties are tribal leases. It is settled that “[wjhatever title the Indians have is in the tribe, and not in the individuals, although held by the tribe for the common use and equal benefit of all the members.” To be sure, the 1933 Act established a pattern of distribution which benefited the appellees more than other Indians on the Navajo Reservation. But it was well within the power of Congress to alter that distributional scheme____ Congress has not deprived the Navajo of the benefits of mineral deposits on their tribal lands. It has merely chosen to re-allocate the 37$ % of royalties which flow through the State in a more efficient and equitable manner____ As no “property,” in a Fifth Amendment sense, was conferred upon residents of the Aneth Extension by the 1933 Act, no violation of the Fifth Amendment was effected by the 1968 legislation.”
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.