Caesar v. Krow’s Empirical Analysis
1918
Citation profile
1 federal appellate · 4 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 6 later decisions — most recently February 1951
1 federal appellate · 4 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 United States v. Arthur Lynah · Calumet Grain Elevator Company v. City of Chicago · William McKay v. Agnes Kalyton · Hy-Yu-Tse-Mil-Kin v. Philomme Smith · Lane v. United States ex rel. Mickadiet
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 6 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The conclusion that the state court was without jurisdiction does not, as claimed, leave plaintiffs without a forum in which to present their case, for in Franklin K. Lane, Secretary of the Interior, v. United States of America, 241 U. S. 201 , 36 Sup. Ct. 599, 60 L. Ed. 956 , it was held under the Act of June 25, 1910, that, although the Secretary of the Interior had recognized certain adopted children of a deceased Indian allottee as his heirs, he had not exhausted his power to reopen the question of the heirship of said decedent, since during the trust period the Indian allotment was still in the administrative control of the Department of the Interior, because of the trust imposed by law.””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Redeagle v. Channing
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.