Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 84 U.S. 211 - Holden v. Joy

Holden v. Joy’s Empirical Analysis

84 U.S. 211 · 1872

Citation profile

96
cited by 96 later decisions
24
cited 24 times by the Supreme Court
5
states following
April 2021
most recently cited

32 federal appellate · 13 district · 10 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 96 later decisions (24 by the Supreme Court) — most recently April 2021 · most notably Oneida Indian Nation of New York State v. County of Oneida New York (1974), Reid v. Covert (1957)

32 federal appellate · 13 district · 10 state decisions

1501872188018901900191019201930194019501960197019801990200020102020decided

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 Meigs and al v. M'Clung's Lessee

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

  1. “[T]he framers of the Constitution intended that [the Treaty Power] should extend to all those objects which in the intercourse of nations had usually been regarded as the proper subjects of negotiation and treaty, if not inconsistent with the nature of our government and the relation between the States and the United States”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “[T]he Indians as tribes or nations, have been considered as distinct, independent communities, retaining their original, natural rights as the undisputed possessors of the soil, from time immemorial.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “still it is insisted that the President and Senate, in concluding [a treaty for the transfer of property], could not lawfully covenant that a patent should issue to convey lands which belonged to the United States without the consent of Congress. ... On the contrary, there are many authorities where it is held that a treaty may convey to a grantee good title to such lands without an act of Congress conferring it. .”
    2 later decisions 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.