Buzzard’s Empirical Analysis
Citation profile
6 federal appellate · 2 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 18 later decisions — most recently October 2024
6 federal appellate · 2 district · 2 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 Washington v. Confederated Tribes of the Colville Indian Reservation · Oklahoma Tax Commission v. Citizen Band Potawatomi Indian Tribe of Oklahoma · Robertson v. Methow Valley Citizens Council · Federal Power Commission v. Tuscarora Indian Nation · United States v. John
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 18 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“land is 'validly set apart for the use of Indians as such' only if the federal government takes some action indicating that the land is designated for use by Indians.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“(1) land within the limits of any Indian reservation, (2) dependent Indian communities, and (3) Indian allotments, the Indian titles to which have not been extinguished. In addition the Supreme Court has held that Indian country includes land " 'validly set apart for the use of the Indians as such, under the superintendency of the Government.’ ” Applying this test, the Court has concluded that Indian country includes land designated as an "Indian colony,” and land held in trust by the United States for the use of an Indian tribe.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“If the restriction against alienation were sufficient to make any land purchased by the UKB [United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians] Indian country, the UKB could remove land from state jurisdiction and force the federal government to exert jurisdiction over that land without either sovereign having any voice in the matter. Nothing in [ U.S. v. ] McGowan [ 302 U.S. 535 , 58 S.Ct. 286 , 82 L.Ed. 410 ] (1938) or the cases concerning trust land indicates the Supreme Court intended for tribes to have such unilateral power.”
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.