Beecher v. Wetherby’s Empirical Analysis
95 U.S. 517 · 1877
Citation profile
32 federal appellate · 22 district · 27 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 219 later decisions (51 by the Supreme Court) — most recently July 2020 · most notably Oneida Indian Nation of New York State v. County of Oneida New York (1974), Donnelly v. United States (1913)
32 federal appellate · 22 district · 27 state decisions — followed in 14 states
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 The Cherokee Nation v. The State of Georgia · De La Fayette Wilcox v. John Jackson · Leavenworth Lawrence and Galveston Railroad Company v. United States · The United States v. Don Fernando De La Maza Arredondo · Schulenberg v. Harriman
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 219 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“... the United States would be governed by such considerations of justice as would control a Christian people in their treatment of an ignorant and dependent race.”
8 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““In Cooper v. Roberts, 18 How. 173 [ 15 L. Ed. 338 ], this court gave construction to a similar clause in the compact upon which the state of Michigan was admitted into th^ Union, and held, after full consideration, that by it the state acquired such an interest in every section 16 that her title became perfect so soon as the section in any township was designated by the survey. ‘We agree,’ said the court, ‘that, until the survey of the township and the designation of the specific section, the right of the state rests in compact, binding, it is true, the public faith, and dependent for execution upon the political authorities. Courts of justice have no authority to mark out and define the land which shall be subject to the grant. But, when the political authorities have performed this duty, the compact has an object upon which it can attach, and, if there is no legal impediment, the title of the state becomes a legál title. The jus ad rem, by the performance of that executive act, becomes a jus in re, judicial in its nature, and under the cognizance and protection of the judicial authorities, as well as the others.’ In this case,, the township embracing the land in question was surveyed in October, 1852, and was subdivided into sections in May and June, 1854. With this identification of the section the title of the state, upon the authority cited, became complete, un less there had been a sale or other disposition of the property by the United States previous to the compact w”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““The right of the Indians to their occupancy is as sacred as that of the United States to the fee, but it is only a right of occupancy.””
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.