Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

United States Vs. John

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • Jun 23, 1978

Citation network · 7-day free trial

Brief every cited case in minutes

Open an 18-section AI Brief on any citation below, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial - no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

58 entries 7 linked 51 unlinked
Show
  1. Winton Vs. Amos US Supreme Court · Mar 07, 1921
  2. Rice Vs. Olson US Supreme Court · Apr 23, 1945
  3. Worcester Vs. Georgia US Supreme Court · Jan 01, 1832
  4. Choctaw Nation Vs. Oklahoma US Supreme Court · Apr 27, 1970
  5. United States Vs. Mcgowan US Supreme Court · Jan 03, 1938
  6. United States Vs. Pelican US Supreme Court · Feb 24, 1914
    Relied / Followed
  7. Seymour Vs. Superintendent US Supreme Court · Jan 15, 1962
  8. U.S. 634 (1978) U.S. Supreme Court United States v. John
    Search
  9. U.S. 634 (1978) United States v. John
    Search
  10. years in the state penitentiary. On appeal, the Supreme Court of Mississippi, relying on its earlier decision in Tubby v. State
    Search
  11. So.2d 272 (1976), and on the decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in United States v. State
    Search
  12. We Page 437 U. S. 638 postponed jurisdiction, 434 U.S. 1032 (1978). We now note jurisdiction. Antoine v. Washington
    Search
  13. McClanahan v. Arizona
    Search
  14. has been told in the pages of the reports of this Court and of other federal courts. See, e.g., Choctaw Nation v. Oklahoma
    Search
  15. Fleming v. McCourtain
    Search
  16. United States v. Choctaw
    Search
  17. Choctaw Nation v. United
    Search
  18. Chitto v. United
    Search
  19. an embarrassment and an intractable problem for the Federal Government for at least a century. See, e.g., Chitto v. United
    Search
  20. the term as it was used in various criminal statutes relating to Indians. In one of these cases, United States v. McGowan
    Search
  21. U. S. 538 . The principal test applied was drawn from Page 437 U. S. 649 an earlier case, United States v. Pelican
    Search
  22. at least for the purposes of federal criminal jurisdiction at that particular time. See United States v. Celestine
    Search
  23. It was a necessary premise of at least one of our earlier decisions. Seymour v. Superintendent
    Search
  24. U. S. 351 (1962). See also Williams v. Lee
    Search
  25. In re Carmen's Petition, 165 F.Supp. 942 (ND Cal.1958), aff'd sub nom. Dickson v. Carmen
    Search
  26. federal supervision over them has not been continuous, destroys the federal power to deal with them. United States v. Wright
    Search
  27. does not, in itself, end the powers given Congress to Page 437 U. S. 654 deal with them. See United States v. Celestine
    Search
  28. Together with No. 77-575, John et al. v. Mississippi
    Search
  29. Under Keeble v. United
    Search
  30. urged by the United States, did not reach the issue. It has not been argued before this Court. See, however, Felicia v. United
    Search
  31. They also set the stage for the constitutional crisis surrounding this Courts decision in Worcester v. Georgia
    Search
  32. Chitto v. United
    Search
  33. the agent in charge of the task refused to record the claims of those who elected to remain. See, e.g., Coleman v. Doe
    Search
  34. of the original treaty. It appears that, in practice, none of the scrip was delivered before removal, Chitto v. United
    Search
  35. Choctaws found themselves forced to prove their claims once again, this time in the federal courts. See Choctaw Nation v. United
    Search
  36. was conditioned on removal from Mississippi. See the complete account of these efforts in Estate of Winton v. Amos
    Search
  37. Bates v. Clark
    Search
  38. under the earlier statutory language and to develop them according to changing conditions. See, e.g., Donnelly v. United
    Search
  39. also was intended to preempt tribal jurisdiction. See Oliphant v. Suquamish
    Search
  40. in response to the decision of this Court in Ex parte Crow Dog, 109 U. S. 556 (1883). See United States v. Kagama
    Search
  41. J. Jennings, v. Beggs
    Search
  42. U.S. Supreme Court United States v. John
    Search
  43. Tubby v. State
    Search
  44. United States v. State
    Search
  45. Antoine v. Washington
    Search
  46. See United States v. Celestine
    Search
  47. Williams v. Lee
    Search
  48. Dickson v. Carmen
    Search
  49. United States v. Wright
    Search
  50. Felicia v. United
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial