Gilpin v. United States, 256 U.S. 10 (1921). · Go Syfert
Search
Gilpin v. United States, 256 U.S. 10 (1921). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
5 citation events across 2 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: White v. Higgins (ca1, 1940-12-12)
Top citers, strongest first. 1 distinct citer. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) White v. Higgins
1st Cir. · 1940 · confidence medium
Upon appeal to the Supreme Court [ 256 U.S. 1 , 41 S.Ct. 419 , 65 L.Ed. 801 ], Chase contended again that the United States “having relied at the first trial upon the single proposition that the Act of 1893 repealed the Act of 1882 and thereby cut off the right of these Indian claimants to allotments, and having failed in that defense, cannot, upon the second trial, abandon that defense and insist that the Act of May 11, 1912, repealed the Act of 1882.” In affirming the Circuit Court’ of Appeals the Supreme Court said (256 U.S. at 10, 41 S.Ct. at 419, 65 L.Ed. 801 ) : “The proposition …
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Gilpin, a Minor, Etc.
v.
United States
243.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Apr 11, 1921.
256 U.S. 10
Mr. John Lee Webster, with whom Mr. Hiram Chase was on the briefs, for appellant., Mr. Assistant Attorney General Garnett, with whom Mr. H. L. Underwood, Special Assistant to the Attorney General, was on the brief, for the United States. ., Mr. Oscar C. Anderson, with whom Mr. Charles J. Kappler was on the brief, for the Omaha Tribe of Indians, by special leave of court.
McKenna.
Cited by 2 opinions  |  Published
Mr. Justice McKenna

delivered the opinion of the court.

This case was argued and submitted with the Chase Case, No. 242, ante, 1. It is a suit by Mary Gilpin by her next friend to have adjudged to her a right to an allotment of lands in the Omaha Reservation, she being an Omaha Indian. The right is based on the same treaties and acts of Congress as those passed upon in the Chase Case, and the effect of the Act of May 11, 1912, repealing the acts — that of 1882 and that of 1893.

The decree of the District Court was adverse to her right, and this decree was affirmed by the Circuit Court of Appeals. 261 Fed. Rep. 841.

For the reasons stated in the opinion in the Chase Case, the decree of the Circuit Court of Appeals is

Affirmed.