United States v. Gemmill’s Empirical Analysis
535 F.2d 1145 · 1976
Citation profile
28 federal appellate · 7 district · 6 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 54 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently September 2020 · most notably State of Arizona v. State of California (2000), The Delaware Nation v. Commonwealth Of Pennsylvania (2006)
28 federal appellate · 7 district · 6 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 16 U.S.C. § 551 (Wildfire Disaster Recovery Act of 1989) · 18 U.S.C. § 1852 · 18 U.S.C. § 1863 · 18 U.S.C. § 5010 · 18 U.S.C. § 641 (Livestock Fraud Protection Act) · 25 U.S.C. § 70 · 25 U.S.C. § 701 · 7 U.S.C. § 1011
Relies on Dorszynski v. United States · United States v. Santa Fe Pacific Railroad · Tee-Hit-Ton Indians v. United States · Johnson Graham's v. William M'Intosh · United States v. Title Insurance & Trust 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 54 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“by exercise of complete dominion adverse to the right of occupancy,”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“any ambiguity about extinguishment that may have remained after the establishment of the forest reserves, has been decisively resolved by congressional payment of compensation to the ... Indians for these lands.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The exact date on which Indian title has been extinguished is often difficult to determine. ( See United States v. Pueblo of San Ildefonso, supra , at 1391.) The four events we have recounted amply illustrate that problem. Any one of these actions, examined in isolation, may not provide an unequivocal answer to the question of extinguishment. However, the activity of the federal government, beginning with the ambiguous Act of 1851 and culminating in the payment of the compromise settlement, has included expulsion by force, inconsistent use, and voluntary payment of compensation agreement. ( See Santa Fe, supra , 314 U.S. at 347 , 62 S.Ct. at 252 , 86 L.Ed. at 270 .) This century-long course of conduct amply demonstrates that the Pit River Indian title has been extinguished.”
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.