United States v. Jackson’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

1 federal appellate · 1 district ·

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

1. “Be it enacted ... That there is hereby granted to the Minneapolis, Red Lake and Manitoba Railway Company[,] ... a line of railroad ... having its northern terminus at a point ... in the Red Lake Indian Reservation[,] ... the right to select and take from the lands of the Red Lake Indian Reservation grounds adjacent to its northern terminus ... not to exceed in extent three hundred and twenty acres. Sec. 2. That before title to said lands shall vest in the said railway company, and before said company shall occupy or use said lands, compensation therefor shall be made to the tribes of Indians residing upon the said reservation.... The amount of compensation for said lands shall be ascertained and determined in such manner as the Secretary of the Interior may direct and be subject to his final approval. Sec. 3. That said company shall file maps ... showing the definite location of the grounds so selected and taken, which said maps shall be subject to the approval of the Secretary of the Interi- or.... Sec. 5. The laws of the United States now in force, or that may hereafter be enacted, prohibiting the introduction and sale of intoxicating liquors in the Indian country, shall be in full force and effect throughout the territory hereby granted, until otherwise directed by Congress or the President of the United States, and for that purpose said tract shall be held to be and to remain a part of the diminished Red Lake Indian Reservation. Sec. 6. That Congress reserves the right to”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. United States v. Jackson

2. “In modern times, the Supreme Court has decided seven cases raising the question whether various surplus lands Acts diminished or entirely terminated particular reservations. In three cases, the answer was no. Solem v. Bartlett, 465 U.S. 463, 481 , 104 S.Ct. 1161 , 79 L.Ed.2d 443 (1984); Mattz [v. Arnett], 412 U.S. [481,] at 506, 93 S.Ct. 2245 [, 37 L.Ed.2d 92 (1973)]; Seymour v. Supt. of Wash. State Pen., 368 U.S. 351, 356 , 82 S.Ct. 424 , 7 L.Ed.2d 346 (1962). In the other four, including the most recent two, the answer was yes. South Dakota v. Yankton Sioux Tribe, 522 U.S. 329, 358 , 118 S.Ct. 789 , 139 L.Ed.2d 773 (1998); Hagen [v. Utah], 510 U.S. 399, 421 , 114 S.Ct. 958 [, 127 L.Ed.2d 252 (1994) ]; Rosebud Sioux Tribe v. Kneip, 430 U.S. 584, 614-15 , 97 S.Ct. 1361 , 51 L.Ed.2d 660 (1977); DeCoteau v. Dist. Cnty. Ct., 420 U.S. 425, 445 , 95 S.Ct. 1082 , 43 L.Ed.2d 300 (1975).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 996 F. Supp. 2d 815 - Smith v. Parker

3. “Only Congress can divest a reservation of its land and diminish its boundaries, and its intent to do so must be clear. To assess whether an Act of Congress diminished a reservation, we start' with the statutory text, for the most probative evidence of diminishment is, of course, the statutory language used to open the Indian lands. Under our precedents, we also examine all the circumstances surrounding the opening of a reservation.... [M]any surplus lands Acts did not clearly convey whether the opened lands retained reservation status or were divested of all Indian interests. For that reason, our precedents also look to any unequivocal evidence of the contemporaneous and subsequent understanding of the status of the reservation by members and nonmembers, as well as the United States and the State [where the reservation is located].”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. United States v. Jackson