Mitchell v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
664 F.2d 265 · 1981
Citation profile
8 federal appellate · 6 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 71 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently February 2016 · most notably United States v. Mitchell (1983), United States v. John C. Grimberg Co. (1983)
8 federal appellate · 6 district ·
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. § 161A · 25 U.S.C. § 162A · 25 U.S.C. § 318A · 25 U.S.C. § 325 · 25 U.S.C. § 349 · 25 U.S.C. § 406 · 25 U.S.C. § 407 · 25 U.S.C. § 466
Relies on United States v. Testan · Califano v. Sanders · United States v. Sherwood · Brown v. General Services Administration · United States v. Mitchell
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 71 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“A somewhat different problem involves interest. Our decision in Cheyenne-Arapaho Tribes of Indians v. United States, 206 Ct.Cl. 340 , 512 F.2d 1390 (1975), deals with interest on Indian funds for the period after the August 1946 closing-date of Indian Claims Commission claims. Briefly, tribal trust funds and proceeds of the sale of Indian lands must be held in the Treasury at interest under 25 U.S.C. §§ 161a and 161b (1976), but an alternative under § 162a is deposit in banks; this also applies to the funds held by the United States for individual Indians, 25 U.S.C. § 162a (1976). The bank deposits are subject to rigid statutory precautions to assure complete safety. The holding of Cheyenne-Arapaho is that defendant must as trustee exercise reasonable management zeal to get for the Indians the best rate, the statutory 4% being but a floor, not a ceiling. United States v. Mescalero Apache Tribe, 207 Ct.Cl. 369 , 518 F.2d 1309 (1975), cert. denied, 425 U.S. 911 , 96 S.Ct. 1506 , 47 L.Ed.2d 761 (1976), which defendant says overruled Cheyenne-Arapaho, did not do so; it involved different statutes and periods of time from those with which we were concerned in Cheyenne-Arapaho and are concerned with here.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“'[i]n each situation, the precise scope of the fiduciary obligation of the United States and any liability for breach of that obligation must be determined in light of the relationships between the Government and the Indians.’ ” 664 F.2d at 274 (quoting Navajo Tribe, 624 F.2d at 988 ). . On this point, plaintiff relies upon a finding made by the district court in Manchester Band of Pomo Indians, to the effect that”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“[a]ny restricted Indian lands, whether tribally or individually owned, may be leased by the Indian owners, with the approval of the Secretary of the Interior, for public, religious, educational, recreational, residential or business purposes . . . and all leases and renewals shall be made under such terms and regulations as may be prescribed by the Secretary of the Interior.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage
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.