United States v. Wright
Citations
- 229 U.S. 226
- 33 S. Ct. 630
- 57 L. Ed. 1160
- 1913 U.S. LEXIS 2439
Syllabus
<p>In determining the effect of statutes regarding the introduction of liquor into Indian country, within the territorial limits of Oklahoma, every consideration arising out of the guardianship of the Federal Government over the Indians and control of their land indicate that as to them the liquor prohibition should be maintained after Statehood so far as consistent with the control of the State over its internal police.</p> <p>The liquor prohibition, so far as it concerns Indians, has always been deemed one of the peculiar responsibilities of the Federal Government.</p> <p>The provisions of § 2139, Rev. Stat., as amended by the acts of July 23, ■ 1892, and January 30,1897, so far as they related to the introduction of liquor into the Indian Territory from points outside of that Territory, but within what is now Oklahoma, have not been repealed, ’either expressly or by implication, by the Oklahoma Enabling Act.</p>
Judges: Pitney
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
25 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.
- United States v. SandovalSupreme Court· 1913-10-20· cited 287×
- United States v. PelicanSupreme Court· 1914-02-24· cited 169×
- United States v. NiceSupreme Court· 1916-06-25· cited 157×
- Joplin Mercantile Co. v. United StatesSupreme Court· 1915-02-23· cited 95×
- Perrin v. United StatesSupreme Court· 1914-02-24· cited 89×
- Johnson v. GearldsSupreme Court· 1914-06-22· cited 36×
- Creekmore v. United StatesEighth Circuit· 1916-10-17· cited 31×
- National Association of Greeting Card Publishers v. United States Postal ServiceD.C. Circuit· 1979-06-08· cited 21×
- In Re CarmenCalifornia Supreme Court· 1957-08-02· cited 20×
- Kennedy v. United StatesSupreme Court· 1924-05-26· cited 12×
- Salazar v. United StatesEighth Circuit· 1916-10-13· cited 11×
- Lewellen v. United StatesEighth Circuit· 1915-03-13· cited 10×
- Ammerman v. United StatesEighth Circuit· 1914-07-08· cited 9×
- Pronovost v. United StatesSupreme Court· 1914-02-24· cited 8×
- Edwards v. United StatesEighth Circuit· 1925-03-23· cited 8×
- Morgan v. WardEighth Circuit· 1915-05-17· cited 7×
- Perrin v. United StatesSupreme Court· 1974-01-16· cited 3×
- In Re Island Airlines, Inc.Hawaii Supreme Court· 1961-02-27· cited 3×
- Oklahoma, K. & M. I. Ry. Co. v. BowlingEighth Circuit· 1918-03-09· cited 3×
- United States v. LutherE.D. Oklahoma· 1919-09-20· cited 2×
Cites
15 cases in this archive are cited by this case.
- United States v. KagamaSupreme Court· 1886-05-10· cited 738×
- Heckman v. United StatesSupreme Court· 1912-04-01· cited 338×
- Bates v. ClarkSupreme Court· 1877-12-18· cited 180×
- Mullen v. United StatesSupreme Court· 1912-04-15· cited 99×
- United States v. KeitelSupreme Court· 1908-12-14· cited 93×
- United States v. GeorgeSupreme Court· 1913-03-24· cited 89×
- Clairmont v. United StatesSupreme Court· 1912-06-10· cited 71×
- United States v. StevensonSupreme Court· 1909-11-29· cited 70×
- Hallowell v. United StatesSupreme Court· 1911-05-15· cited 62×
- United States v. SuttonSupreme Court· 1909-12-20· cited 48×
- United States v. MillerSupreme Court· 1912-02-26· cited 42×
- Goat v. United StatesSupreme Court· 1912-04-29· cited 41×
- United States v. BiggsSupreme Court· 1909-01-04· cited 27×
- Deming Investment Co. v. United StatesSupreme Court· 1912-04-29· cited 12×
- United States v. AndersonSupreme Court· 1913-04-07· cited 8×
Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.