Citation network
United States Vs. Mitchell
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Apr 15, 1980
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
-
U.S. 535 (1980) U.S. Supreme Court United States v. MitchellSearch
-
U.S. 535 (1980) United States v. MitchellSearch
-
United States v. KingSearch
-
States, the allottee would occupy the land as a homestead for his personal use in agriculture or grazing. See Mattz v. ArnettSearch
-
timber for the purpose of clearing the land, but not for the primary purpose of marketing the timber. United States v. CookSearch
-
two years after the General Allotment Act was enacted, the Attorney General determined that the rule of United States v. CookSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
but forbidding the sale of live timber. Act of Feb. 16, 1889, ch. 172, 25 Stat. 673. See also Pine River logging Co. v. UnitedSearch
-
See United States v. TestanSearch
-
United States v. CreekSearch
-
Jacobs v. UnitedSearch
-
the respondents did not raise these contentions in the Court of Claims, we will not consider them. E.g., Adickes v. KressSearch
-
MR. JUSTICE WHITE, with whom MR. JUSTICE BRENNAN and MR. JUSTICE STEVENS join, dissenting. In United States v. TestanSearch
-
Id. at 424 U. S. 400 , quoting Eastport S.S. Corp. v. UnitedSearch
-
The language of the Act, which is the starting point for all statutory interpretation, Group Life Health Ins. Co. v. RoyalSearch
-
meaning, as we commonly do when the law does not define a statutory phrase precisely, Group Life & Health Ins. Co. v. RoyalSearch
-
Morton v. MancariSearch
-
is not sensible to assume an intent to depart from these well known fiduciary principles. Rather, as we noted in Mattz v. ArnettSearch
-
as to which it was expected that the Indian himself would reside on and manage the allotments. Not until United States v. PayneSearch
-
the Act is entitled to considerable deference in its interpretation of the statute, e.g., Zenith Radio Corp. v. UnitedSearch
-
U.S. at 424 U. S. 400 , quoting Eastport S.S. Corp. v. UnitedSearch
-
U.S. Supreme Court United States v. MitchellSearch
-
See Mattz v. ArnettSearch
-
of United States v. CookSearch
-
Co. v. UnitedSearch
-
E.g., Adickes v. KressSearch
-
In United States v. TestanSearch
-
Eastport S.S. Corp. v. UnitedSearch
-
Group Life Health Ins. Co. v. RoyalSearch
-
Zenith Radio Corp. v. UnitedSearch
-
United States v. MasonSearch
-
United States v. PayneSearch
-
United States v. CookSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial