United States v. Sampson, 187 U.S. 436 (1903). · Go Syfert
Search
United States v. Sampson, 187 U.S. 436 (1903). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
G Cite
cited 2× by 2 distinct cases, last quoted 1979 · …we must presume that congress acted in perfect good faith in the dealings with the indians of which complaint is made, and that the legislative branch of the government exercised its best judgment in the premises. ⚠ not in text
46 citation events (4 in the last 25 years) across 21 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Granite Valley Hotel Ltd. Partnership v. Jackpot Junction Bingo & Casino (minnctapp, 1997-02-18)
Treatment trajectory · 1903 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1903 1964 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 10 distinct citers. How cited ↗
cited Cited as authority (rule) Granite Valley Hotel Ltd. Partnership v. Jackpot Junction Bingo & Casino
Minn. Ct. App. · 1997 · confidence medium
Id. at 565-67, 23 S.Ct. at 221-22 (citations omitted).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Ute Indian Tribe v. State of Utah
D. Utah · 1981 · confidence medium
In Lone Wolf v. Hitchcock, 187 U.S., at 566, 568, [23 S.Ct., at 221, 222], this Court dealing with the validity of a cession of tribal lands enacted in contravention of a treaty requiring three-fourth Indian consent, held: “The power exists to abrogate the provisions of an Indian treaty, though presumably such power will be exercised only when circumstances arise which will not only justify the government in disregarding the stipulations of the treaty, but may demand, in the interest of the country and the Indians themselves, that it should do so.
cited Cited as authority (rule) Rosebud Sioux Tribe, Appellant-Plaintiff v. Honorable Richard Kneip, Appellees-Defendants
8th Cir. · 1975 · confidence medium
The legislation in question was constitutional, and the demurrer to the bill was therefore rightly sustained. 187 U.S. at 566, 568 , 23 S.Ct. at 221, 222 (Emphasis in original).
cited Cited "see" Pueblo of Jemez v. United States
D.N.M. · 2018 · signal: see · confidence high
See 187 U.S. at 565 , 23 S.Ct. 216 .
cited Cited "see" Menominee Indian Tribe of Wisconsin v. United States
Fed. Cl. · 1997 · signal: see · confidence high
See id. at 564 , 23 S.Ct. at 220-21 .
discussed Cited "see" United States v. Truckee-Carson Irrigation District
9th Cir. · 1981 · signal: see · confidence high
See Lone Wolf v. Hitchcock, supra, 187 U.S. at 565, 568 , 23 S.Ct. at 221, 222 . 124 But one would paint with too broad a brush if one concluded that cases such as Lone Wolf generally restrained the courts' scrutiny of the government's dealings with Indians.
cited Cited "see" United States v. Truckee-Carson Irrigation District
9th Cir. · 1981 · signal: see · confidence high
See Lone Wolf v. Hitchcock, supra, 187 U.S. at 565, 568 , 23 S.Ct. at 221, 222 .
discussed Cited "see" National Indian Youth Council v. Bruce
D. Utah · 1973 · signal: see · confidence high
See cases cited note 26 supra. In Lone Wolf v. Hitchcock, the Court stated the following, 187 U.S. at 565 , 23 S.Ct. at 221 : Plenary authority over the tribal relations of the Indians has been exercised by Congress from the beginning, and the power has always been deemed a political one, not subject to be controlled by the judicial department of the government. 28 .
cited Cited "see" The Infanta Maria Teresa
SCOTUS · 1903 · signal: see · confidence high
See 187 U.S. 436 .
cited Cited "see, e.g." Edna Emerson Littlewolf v. Manuel Lujan, Jr., Secretary of the Interior
D.C. Cir. · 1989 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e.g., Lone Wolf, 187 U.S. at 565-66 , 23 S.Ct. at 221 .
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
United States, Appt.
v.
William T. Sampson, Rear Admiral, U. S. Navy
273.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Jan 5, 1903.
187 U.S. 436
1903 U.S. LEXIS 1662
Mr. James H. Hayden, for petitioners on this motion, ap-pellees.
Cited by 2 opinions  |  Published
2 passages pin-cited by 2 cases
Pinpoint authority: bottom 76%
Citer courts: Ninth Circuit (1) · Court of Appeals of Minnesota (1)
The Chief Justice.

This libel in prize was filed by Eear Admiral Sampson in his own behalf and also in behalf of all of the officers and enlisted men of the United States Navy, who took part in the engagement off Santiago de Cuba on July 3, 1898, in the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia, and went to a decree of condemnation from which this appeal was prosecuted.

On May 19, 1902, the death of Rear Admiral Sampson was suggested by the Attorney General, and a motion made that[*437] the cause proceed under its then caption and without the substitution of any other individual as a party, which was postponed to the hearing of thé case on its merits.

That hearing has been had, and counsel, in aid of the court, have made application for the substitution of the adminis-tratrix of Admiral Sampson, and submitted considerations in respect of the substitution also of one or more officers, as, and if, deemed necessary.

We think some one to carry on the proceedings in the interest of all should be substituted, but that it is not necessary that the personal representatives of those who may have deceased should come in, or that any person should ex officio be designated. The matter is merely one of convenience and without significance in itself.

Bear Admiral Evans, Bear Admiral Taylor, Captain French E. Chadwick, and others are represented in the litigation by counsel; but Bear Admiral Schley and others are not. Of those so represented, Bear Admiral Evans is absent on a foreign station, while Bear Admiral Taylor is within the jurisdiction. It seems to us that the substitution of Bear Admiral Taylor will satisfactorily meet the exigency, and it will be

Ordered accordingly.