Ute Indian Tribe of the Uintah and Ouray Reservation, a Body Politic and Corporate of the United States of America v. Parley Probst and Oranna B. Moosman, Administratrix of the Estate of Elizabeth C. Bumgarner Poowegup, Deceased, Ute Indian Tribe of the Uintah and Ouray Reservation, a Body Politic and Corporate of the United States of America v. Parley Probst, and Oranna B. Moosman, Administratrix of the Estate of Elizabeth C. Bumgarner Poowegup, Deceased’s Empirical Analysis
428 F.2d 491 · 1970
Citation profile
26 federal appellate · 11 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 42 later decisions — most recently May 2018 · most notably Chem-Haulers, Inc. v. United States (1976), United States v. Big Crow (1975)
26 federal appellate · 11 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
Relies on Bolling v. Sharpe · United States v. American Trucking Associations · Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. Federal Communications Commission · Holmberg v. Armbrecht · J. I. Case Co. v. Borak
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.
““Any member of the mixed-blood group may dispose of his interest in the tribal assets prior to termination of Federal supervision, subject to the approval of the Secretary. In the event a member of the mixed-blood group determines to dispose of his interest in any of said real property at any time within ten years from August 27, 1954, he shall first offer it to the members of the tribe, and no sale of any interest, prior to termination of Federal supervision,.shall be authorized without such offer to said members of the tribe in such form as may be approved by the Secretary. After termination of Federal supervision the requirement of such offer, in form to be approved by the Secretary, shall be a covenant to run with the land for said ten-year period, and shall be expressly provided in any patent or deed issued prior to the expiration of said period.” (25 U.S.C. § 677n).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“In the case at bar the classification into the two groups was supported by the Indians, was relevant to the purposes of the legislation, and had a reasonable basis. We find no arbitrary or capricious discrimination which violates Fifth Amendment due process.”
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.