State v. Williamson’s Empirical Analysis
1973
Citation profile
11 federal appellate · 5 district · 23 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 41 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently March 2026 · most notably South Dakota v. Yankton Sioux Tribe (1998), Petition of Famous Brands, Inc. (1984)
11 federal appellate · 5 district · 23 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
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 1151 (Indian Crimes Act of 1976) · 25 U.S.C. § 1321
Relies on Williams v. Lee · Patterson v. Medberry · Seymour v. Superintendent of Washington State Penitentiary · State of Arizona Ex Rel. Edgar Merrill, Sheriff of Apache County v. Wayne Turtle · City of New Town v. United States
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 41 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Article I. ‘The Yankton tribe of Dakota or Sioux Indians hereby cede, sell, relinquish, and convey to the United States all their claim, right, title, and interest in and to all the unallotted lands within the limits of the reservation set apart to said Indians as aforesaid.’ Article II. ‘In consideration for the lands ceded, sold, relinquished, and conveyed to the United States as aforesaid, the United States stipulates and agrees to pay to the said Yankton tribe of Sioux Indians the sum of six hundred thousand dollars ($600,000), as hereinbefore provided for.’ ””
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Cook v. State · State v. Thompson“It is our opinion that this agreement, the Act of 1894, clearly, by its own terms, was an outright cession and sale by the Yankton Tribe of its unallotted lands within the reservation to the United States.... Where a tribe sells and the United States pays for all tribal interests, nothing is left in the tribe. It is an absolute conveyance. The land is severed from the reservation and is no longer “Indian Country”.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Thompson“Except as otherwise provided in sections 1154 and 1156 of this title, the term “Indian country”, as used in this chapter, means (a) all land within the limits of any Indian reservation under the jurisdiction of the United States Government, notwithstanding the issuance of any patent, and, including rights-of-way running through the reservation!)]”
1 later decision 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.