United States v. Wright’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

22 federal appellate · 4 district · 5 state decisions

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

1. ““The fact that the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians had surrendered the right to their tribal lands, had separated themselves from their tribe, and had become subject to the laws of the state of North Carolina, did not destroy the right or the duty of guardianship on the part of the federal government. The fact that they constituted a community of these aboriginal people who were wards of the government was sufficient basis for the exercise of the power; and to what extent the power should be exercised was for Congress to decide. Even the conferring of citizenship upon the Indians and allotment of lands to them in severalty does not place them beyond the reach of congressional regulations adopted for their protection. United States v. Sandoval, supra [ 231 U.S. 28 , 34 S.Ct. 1 , 58 L.Ed. 107 ]; Tiger v. Western Inv. Co., 221 U.S. 286 , 31 S.Ct. 578 , 55 L.Ed. 738 ; Heckman v. U. S., 224 U.S. 413 , 32 S.Ct. 424 , 56 L.Ed. 820 ; U. S. v. Nice, 241 U.S. 591 , 36 S.Ct. 696 , 60 L.Ed. 1192 ; Brader v. James, 246 U.S. 88 , 96, 38 S.Ct. 285 , 62 L.Ed. 591 . And the principle is well settled that whether the protective and regulatory power of Congress shall be extended over an Indian community is a political question with the determination of which the courts have no power to interfere. United States v. Holliday, 3 Wall. 407 , 419, 18 L.Ed. 182 ; Tiger v. Western Inv. Co., supra; United States v. Sandoval, supra; Sisseton & Wahpeton Bands of Sioux Indians v. U. S., supra [ 277 U.S. 4”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Haile v. Saunooke · United States v. 7,405.3 Acres of Land

2. ““Not only with respect to the acquisition and preservation of the title to this land, but also in practically every other way imaginable, the government of the United States from 1868 to the present day has continuously guarded and protected the interests of this band of Indians, and has done everything possible to promote their progress and development. It has supervised their contracts and instituted suits for the cancellation of contracts which were thought not advantageous to them. U. S. v. Boyd (C.C.) 68 F. 577 ; Id. (C.C.A. [4 Cir.]) 83 F. 547 . It has appointed agents to guide them in the management of their affairs. It has built schools, including a large boarding school, and provided teachers for the education of their children. It has provided an experienced farmer to go among them and teach them the arts of agriculture. It has provided a hospital for the care of their sick, and has made provision for the care of their deaf, dumb, blind, and insane. It has provided a physician and a field nurse to go among them and care for the sick in their homes. It has furnished food and clothes for their school children, and has made allowances to members of the tribe to aid in their support. In other words, it has for more than sixty years treated them in all respects as wards of the nation, and has expended in recent years more than $100,000 annually for their support. It appears that for the fiscal year 1930 the appropriation for this purpose was approximately $135,000. “In c”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Haile v. Saunooke · United States v. 7,405.3 Acres of Land

3. ““By the purchases of Thomas, therefore, this Eastern Band of Cherokees had acquired the right to the possession of a large boundary of land in North Carolina, and by the North Carolina statute of 1866 they had acquired, with the approval of the government of the United States, permission to remain permanently in that state. Their economic status had thus been practically restored to what it was prior to the Treaty of New Echota; and Congress in the act of July 27, 1868, 15 Stat. 228 , recognized this status by providing that the Secretary of the Interior should cause a new roll or census to be made ‘of the North Carolina or Eastern Cherokees,’ and that thereafter the Secretary of the Interior should ‘cause the Commissioner of Indian Affairs to take the same supervisory charge of the Eastern or North Carolina Cherokees as of other tribes of Indians.’ (Italics ours.)””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Haile v. Saunooke