Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

Jones Vs. Meehan

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • Oct 30, 1899

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

68 entries 13 linked 55 unlinked
Show
  1. Cherokee Nation Vs. Georgia US Supreme Court · Jan 01, 1831
  2. Worcester Vs. Georgia US Supreme Court · Jan 01, 1832
  3. Doe Vs. Wilson US Supreme Court · Jan 01, 1859
  4. United States Vs. Kagama US Supreme Court · May 10, 1886
  5. United States Vs. Brooks US Supreme Court · Jan 01, 1850
  6. Crews Vs. Burcham US Supreme Court · Jan 01, 1861
  7. Holden Vs. Joy US Supreme Court · Jan 01, 1872
  8. Best Vs. Polk US Supreme Court · Jan 01, 1873
  9. Elk Vs. Wilkins US Supreme Court · Nov 03, 1884
  10. Smith Vs. Stevens US Supreme Court · Jan 01, 1869
  11. Lomax Vs. Pickering US Supreme Court · Feb 20, 1899
  12. Prentice Vs. Stearns US Supreme Court · Mar 02, 1885
    Relied / Followed
  13. HardIn Vs. Boyd US Supreme Court · Mar 15, 1885
  14. U.S. 1 (1899) U.S. Supreme Court Jones v. Meehan
    Search
  15. U.S. 1 (1899) Jones v. Meehan
    Search
  16. not be conveyed by the Indians to anyone but the United States, without the consent of the United States. Johnson v. McIntosh
    Search
  17. Buttz v. Northern
    Search
  18. Pacific Railroad, 119 U. S. 55 , 119 U. S. 67 . In the leading case of Johnson v. McIntosh
    Search
  19. and the tribe, without any act of Congress, or any patent from the Executive authority of the United States. Johnson v. McIntosh
    Search
  20. Mitchel v. United
    Search
  21. Doe v. Beardsley
    Search
  22. New York Indians v. United
    Search
  23. has become more and more appropriate as they have grown less powerful and more dependent. Cherokee Nation v. Georgia
    Search
  24. Stephens v. Cherokee
    Search
  25. its words to learned lawyers, but in the sense in which they would naturally be understood by the Indians. Worcester v. Georgia
    Search
  26. Choctaw Nation v. United
    Search
  27. States, 119 U. S. 1 , 119 U. S. 27 -28. In the leading case of Worcester v. Georgia
    Search
  28. might include a purchase or lease from any Indian acting by authority derived from his tribe only. Johnson v. McIntosh
    Search
  29. Goodell v. Jackson
    Search
  30. and improvement of such persons or to be located on any unimproved and unoccupied land. 7 Stat. 340. In Gaines v. Nicholson
    Search
  31. judgments of the Court, to be presently considered, one of which was delivered by the same learned judge. Crews v. Burcham
    Search
  32. from the Caddo nation to Grappe and his three sons. 7 Stat. 473. In United States v. Brooks
    Search
  33. Stat. 399-401. In Doe v. Wilson
    Search
  34. How. 64 U. S. 463 -464. In Crews v. Burcham
    Search
  35. to one Armstrong was accordingly held to vest the legal title in him, and the scope and effect of the decision in Doe v. Wilson
    Search
  36. patent had issued to the deceased in his lifetime. . . . Some expressions in the opinion delivered in the case of Doe v. Wilson
    Search
  37. And the two decisions were cited and approved by this Court, speaking by Mr. Justice Matthews, in Prentice v. Stearns
    Search
  38. U. S. 446 -447. See also the opinion delivered by Mr. Justice Miller in the circuit court in Prentice v. Northern
    Search
  39. should be authorized to sell the lands for their benefit and to issue patents to the purchasers. 12 Stat. 21. In Smith v. Stevens
    Search
  40. Yet in Best v. Polk
    Search
  41. Niles v. Anderson
    Search
  42. Wray v. Doe
    Search
  43. Stat. 1238. In Libby v. Clark
    Search
  44. Of course, under such a provision, no alienation could be valid without the approval of the President. Pickering v. Lomax
    Search
  45. Stat. 390. That provision might not enable individual Indians to alienate lands which were not before alienable. Beck v. Flournoy
    Search
  46. Eells v. Ross
    Search
  47. a matter within the discretion of the court, largely depending upon the circumstances of the particular case. Hardin v. Boyd
    Search
  48. Smith v. Babcock
    Search
  49. of by considering what the effect of those facts would have been had they been duly pleaded. Liverpool Steam Co. v. Phenix
    Search
  50. U.S. Supreme Court Jones v. Meehan
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial