Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 74 U.S. 113 - Kendall v. United States

Kendall v. United States’s Empirical Analysis

74 U.S. 113 · 1868

Citation profile

30
cited by 30 later decisions
9
cited 9 times by the Supreme Court
4
states following
August 1982
most recently cited

4 federal appellate · 2 district · 5 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 30 later decisions (9 by the Supreme Court) — most recently August 1982 · most notably Retail Clerks International Ass'n, Local 1625 v. Schermerhorn (1963), Calhoun v. Massie (1920)

4 federal appellate · 2 district · 5 state decisions

801868187018801890190019101920193019401950196019701980decided

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.

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

  1. “We have no hesitation .in saying that the United States, under the circumstances, had the right to make the treaty that was made, without consulting plaintiffs, or incurring any liability to them. The act of Congress,, which appropriated the money, only followed the treaty in securing its payment to the individual Indians, without deduction for agents. And both the act and the treaty are inconsistent with the payment of any part of the sum thus appropriated to plaintiffs.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “We apprehend that the doctrine has never been held, that a claim of no fixed amount, nor time or mode of payment; a claim which has never received the assent of the person against whom it . is asserted, and which remains to be settled by negotiation or suit at law, can be so assigned as to give the assignee an equitable right to prevent the original parties from compromising or adjusting the claim on any terms that may suit them.”
    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.