Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 423 F.2d 380 - Fields ex rel. Foster v. United Statesd

Fields ex rel. Foster v. United Statesd’s Empirical Analysis

423 F.2d 380 · 1970

Citation profile

20
cited by 20 later decisions
March 2011
most recently cited

1 district ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 20 later decisions — most recently March 2011

1 district ·

11019701980199020002010decided

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 Cherokee Freedmen & Cherokee Freedmen's Ass'n v. United States · Sioux Tribe of Indians v. United States

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 20 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “[S]ince the instant case is one brought by individual Indians and not a tribe, band, or identifiable group of Indians, we feel that defendant is correct in asserting that section 1505 does not apply to the present case.”). . Plaintiffs also cite a third statute, the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 ("FLSA”). Am. Compl. ¶ 8. However, in their response in opposition to defendant's motion to dismiss, they clarify that they are not alleging a claim under the FLSA in this case. Thus, the court need not address this statute. . Although plaintiffs refer to the latter statute as " 25 U.S.C. § 450 (f),”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “The United States Court of Federal Claims shall have jurisdiction of any claim against the United States accruing after August 13, 1946, in favor of any tribe, band, or other identifiable group of American Indians residing within the territorial limits of the United States or Alaska whenever such claim is one arising under the Constitution, laws or treaties of the United States, or Executive orders of the President, or is one which otherwise would be cognizable in the Court of Federal Claims if the claimant were not an Indian tribe, band or group.”
    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.