Hopkins v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
414 F.2d 464 · 1969
Citation profile
35 federal appellate · 3 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 42 later decisions — most recently March 1992 · most notably United States v. Smith (1975), Pence v. Kleppe (1976)
35 federal appellate · 3 district · 2 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 25 U.S.C. § 331 (White Earth Reservation Land Settlement Act of 1985) · 25 U.S.C. § 334 · 25 U.S.C. § 336 · 25 U.S.C. § 345 · 25 U.S.C. § 461 · 28 U.S.C. § 1353 · 43 U.S.C. § 1171 · 43 U.S.C. § 1201
Relies on Udall v. Tallman · Best v. Humboldt Placer Mining Co. · Braniff Airways, Inc. v. Civil Aeronautics Board · United States v. Jackson · Chapman v. Sheridan-Wyoming Coal Co.
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 42 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““ * * * And the legislative history of the Act supports the conclusion that one of the standards to be applied by the Secretary in making the determinations required by section 1 is whether the reservation lands selected for allotment are capable of yielding support for an Indian settler and his family. If the lands are too poor to accomplish this purpose, the Secretary is not to approve the allotment. “Section 4 of the General Allotment Act, applicable to Indians not residing on a reservation, is to be read with the same limitations. This section expressly provides that allotments to non-reservation Indians are to be made in the same ‘quantities and manner’ as allotments to reservation Indians under section 1. Moreover, the legislative purpose to authorize allotments only upon lands which the Secretary determined could provide a home and furnish a livelihood by farming, raising livestock, or both, applies to the General Allotment Act as a whole. “Section 4 of the General Allotment Act has long been so construed by the Secretary of Interior, and is so construed today. Judicial authority is to the same effect.” (Footnotes omitted.) 414 F.2d at 468 .”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“to cause the same or any part thereof to be surveyed or resurveyed whenever in his opinion such reservation or any part may be advantageously utilized for agricultural or grazing purposes by such Indians, and to cause allotment to each Indian located thereon to be made in such areas as in his opinion may be for their best interest ....”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“[r]epeal of Indian legislation by implication is a common congressional practice.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Preston v. Heckler
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.