Epps v. Andrus’s Empirical Analysis
611 F.2d 915 · 1979
Citation profile
10 federal appellate · 5 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 28 later decisions — most recently December 2016 · most notably Thompson v. County of Franklin (1994), Golden Hill Paugussett Tribe of Indians v. Town of Southbury (1995)
10 federal appellate · 5 district · 1 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 25 U.S.C. § 177
Relies on Foman v. Davis · Oneida Indian Nation of New York State v. County of Oneida New York · Ray Jones v. Patrick Meehan · Mashpee Tribe v. New Seabury Corp. · Joint Tribal Council of the Passamaquoddy Tribe v. Rogers C. B. Morton, Secretary, Department of the Interior, State of Maine, Intervenor-Appellant. Joint Tribal Council of the Passamaquoddy Tribe v. Rogers C. B. Morton, Secretary, Department of the Interior
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.
“No purchase, grant, lease, or other conveyance of lands, or of any title or claim thereto, from any Indian nation or tribe of Indians, shall be of any validity in law or equity, unless the same be made by treaty or convention entered into pursuant to the Constitution.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“must show that ... it is or represents an Indian 'tribe' within the meaning of the Act....”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“As the courts have stated repeatedly, claims on the part of individual Indians or their representatives are not cognizable in federal courts under the Indian Trade and Non-Intercourse Act. In short, since plaintiffs are not suing as a tribe, they do not have standing to bring this claim; and because plaintiffs failed to allege tribal status when these conveyances of property were made, they have failed to state a claim upon which relief can be afforded under the Non-Intercourse Act.”
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.