Brewer v. Dodson’s Empirical Analysis
1916
Citation profile
28 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 28 later decisions — most recently October 1941 · most notably McIntosh v. Holtgrave (1920), Tidal Oil Company v. Flanagan (1922)
28 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 Cook v. Tullis · Campbell-Kawannanakoa v. Campbell · Truskett v. Closser · Lataillade v. Oreña · Brown v. Trent
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 28 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The exclusive plenary power of Congress to legislate with respect to inherited as well as allotted lands of members and freedmen of the Five Civilized Tribes was not impaired by the advent of statehood. Section 1, Enabling Act, supra. And to our minds the language used in the act of May 27, 1908, viz.: ‘that the person and property of all minor allottees of the Five Civilized Tribes, shall, except as otherwise specified by law, be subject to the jurisdiction of the probate courts of the state of Oklahoma,’ is sufficiently comprehensive to embrace all property of such minors, including inherited lands, relative to which the federal government had authority to make any law or regulation, and plainly indicates the intention of Congress to exercise its superintending control over such property during the period of minority fixed by that act, by employing the probate courts of the state as federal agencies for that purpose. Clearly it was contemplated that the property of plaintiff, consisting of his allotted and inherited lands, during the period of his minority as fixed by congressional enactment, should be held In trust by guardian subject to the jurisdiction of the county court; and when said lands were sold and converted into money under the order of the court, there occurred merely a change in the form of such property, which was still charged with the trust and remained subject to the jurisdiction of the court until plaintiff reached his majority under the federal act.””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Barnett v. Secrest““That the statute in question placed the lands of these allottees who were minors under the jurisdiction of the probate courts of Oklahoma, and that such jurisdiction extended to a full superintending control over the lands and to the time when the said minors, as provided by the said act, attained their majority, presents a common highway which both parties to this action travel together.””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Tiger v. Read““Section 6. That the persons and property of minor allottees of the Five Civilized Tribes shall except as otherwise specifically provided by law be subject to the jurisdiction of the probate courts of the state of Oklahoma.””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Barnett v. Secrest
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.