Needelman v. United States, 362 U.S. 600 (1960). · Go Syfert
Search
Needelman v. United States, 362 U.S. 600 (1960). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
47 citation events (5 in the last 25 years) across 14 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: The Tonkawa Tribe v. Richards (ca5, 1996-02-09)
Treatment trajectory · 1972 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1972 1999 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 5 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited "see" The Tonkawa Tribe v. Richards
5th Cir. · 1996 · signal: see · confidence high
See Tuscarora Nation of Indians v. Power Authority of New York, 257 F.2d 885, 893 (2d Cir.1958) (Nonintercourse Act applied to condemnation proceeding by state), vacated as moot, 362 U.S. 608 , 80 S.Ct. 960 , 4 L.Ed.2d 1009 (1960); United States v. First Nat'l.
discussed Cited "see" Tonkawa Tribe of Oklahoma v. Richards
5th Cir. · 1995 · signal: see · confidence high
See Tuscarora Nation of Indians v. Power Authority of New York, 257 F.2d 885, 893 (2d Cir.1958) (Nonintercourse Act applied to condemnation proceeding by state), vacated as moot, 362 U.S. 608 , 80 S.Ct. 960 , 4 L.Ed.2d 1009 (1960); United States v. First Nat’l Bank, 56 F.2d 634, 635 (D.Neb.1931) (“The Omaha tribe owned its lands before Nebraska became a state_ It is hot competent for either the Congress by legislation or the states by court decisions to impair those rights.”), aff'd, 59 F.2d 367 (8th Cir.1932). d.
examined Cited "see" United States v. Rogelio Soto (3×)
11th Cir. · 1983 · signal: see · confidence high
See Needelman v. United States, 261 F.2d 802 (5th Cir.1958) (relying on Goldman v. United States, 316 U.S. 129 , 62 S.Ct. 993 , 86 L.Ed. 1322 (1942)), cert. dismissed, 362 U.S. 600 , 80 S.Ct. 960 , 4 L.Ed.2d 980 (1960); see also Lambert v. United States, 261 F.2d 799 (5th Cir.1958).
discussed Cited "see" That opinion, Tonkawa Tribe of Oklahoma v. Richards, 67 F.3d 103 (5th Cir.1995) is vacated and the following opinion is substituted in its place
unknown court · signal: see · confidence high
See Tuscarora Nation of Indians v. Power Authority of New York, 257 F.2d 885, 893 (2d Cir.1958) (Nonintercourse Act applied to condemnation proceeding by state), vacated as moot, 362 U.S. 608 , 80 S.Ct. 960 , 4 L.Ed.2d 1009 (1960); United States v. First Nat'l Bank, 56 F.2d 634, 635 (D.Neb.1931) (“The Omaha tribe owned its lands before Nebraska became a state____ It is not competent for either the Congress by legislation or the states by court decisions to impair those rights.”), aff'd, 59 F.2d 367 (8th Cir.1932). d.
examined Cited "see, e.g." United States v. Jarrie (3×)
cma · 1978 · signal: see also · confidence low
United States v. Albo, supra; see also Needelman v. United States, 261 F.2d 802 (5th Cir. 1958), cert. dismissed 362 U.S. 600 , 80 S.Ct. 960 , 4 L.Ed.2d 980 (1960).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Needelman
v.
United States
278.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Jun 27, 1960.
362 U.S. 600
Herbert A. Warren, Jr. argued the cause for petitioner. With him on the brief were Hilton R. Carr, Jr. and A. C. Dressier., Osear H. Davis argued the cause for the United States. On the brief were Solicitor General Rankin, Assistant Attorney General Wilkey, Beatrice Rosenberg and Jerome M. Feit.
Frankfurter, Clark, Harlan.
Cited by 11 opinions  |  Published
Per Curiam.

After hearing oral argument, and further study of the record, we conclude that the record does not adequately present the questions tendered in the petition. Accordingly the writ is dismissed as improvidently granted.

Mr. Justice Frankfurter, whom Mr. Justice Clark and Mr. Justice Harlan join.

Considering the volume of cases which invoke the Court's discretionary jurisdiction — as of today 1,091 such cases have been passed on during this Term — it would be indeed surprising if in each Term there were not two or three instances of petitions which, after passing through the preliminary sifting process, did not survive the scrutiny of oral argument. See the cases collected in Rice v. Sioux City Cemetery, 349 U. S. 70, 77-78, and,[*601] more recently, Triplett v. Iowa, 357 U. S. 217, Joseph v. Indiana, 359 U. S. 117, and Phillips v. New York, ante, p. 456. But this is not one of them. The specific questions which were presented by the petition for certiorari are not now found to be frivolous nor do they raise disputed questions of fact, nor does the record otherwise appropriately preclude answers to them. In my view they call for answers against the claims of the petitioner and I would therefore affirm the judgment. In view of the disposition of the case elaboration is not called for.