Display Mode
Dark
Dark
Light
Light
Theme Cover
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Search History
No search history
Copied to clipboard
StarredCase saved
Oh No!
Copied to clipboard
StarredCase saved
Oh No!
Media
Term
Opinion Writer
Direction
Field

Evans v. United States

• 1912 • 226 U.S. 567 • White Court
In the 1912 case of Evans v. United States, the Supreme Court ruled on a matter involving land rights in Oklahoma. The plaintiff, Evans, had purchased land from an individual who was half Native American and half Caucasian but was not officially recognized as part of any tribe. Under existing law at that time, lands allotted to Native Americans were exempt from taxation for a period of twenty-one years unless they were sold or transferred before this period ended. However, because the seller...Open Case
Score:
Copyright © 2026Etalia.ai All Rights Reserved
  • Blog
  • •
  • Privacy
  • •
  • Terms
1 results found
Become a Sponsor
Support Us
Feedback: We can do better!

Your feedback is extremely important to us and greatly appreciated.
Tell us what went wrong

Copied to clipboard
StarredCase saved
Oh No!
Chief White Court
Term: 1912
Docket: 65
226 U.S. 567
33 S. Ct. 133
57 L. Ed. 353
1913 U.S. LEXIS 2264
Argued: Dec 05, 1912

Evans v. United States

  • Pro
  • Pro
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.

Opinion Summary
AI Abstract

In the 1912 case of Evans v. United States, the Supreme Court ruled on a matter involving land rights in Oklahoma. The plaintiff, Evans, had purchased land from an individual who was half Native American and half Caucasian but was not officially recognized as part of any tribe. Under existing law at that time, lands allotted to Native Americans were exempt from taxation for a period of twenty-one years unless they were sold or transferred before this period ended. However, because the seller wasn't officially recognized as part of any tribe when he received his allotment and later sold it to Evans within five years (which violated another statute), there arose a dispute over whether these tax exemptions applied. The court held that despite these circumstances, the exemption still applied since Congress intended for all such allotments - regardless if they're made to tribal members or non-members - to be free from taxes during their first twenty-one years unless prematurely terminated by sale or transfer under certain conditions which didn't apply here due to ambiguity surrounding seller's tribal status when he got his allotment.

Dissent Summary
AI Abstract

In the dissenting opinion for Evans v. United States, Justice Holmes disagreed with the majority's interpretation of what constitutes a bribe under federal law. He argued that accepting money as an official does not automatically constitute bribery unless there is proof that the official altered his or her actions because of it. In this case, he believed there was no evidence to suggest that Evans had changed his behavior due to receiving money from another party and thus should not be convicted of bribery. Furthermore, he contended that if every gift or payment made to an official were considered a bribe, then many innocent transactions would be criminalized unfairly. Therefore, in order for someone to be guilty of bribery according to Holmes' interpretation, they must have accepted something with corrupt intent - meaning they intended their actions as an officer/official would change based on what they received.

Opinion written by Justice MPitney
Decided: Jan 06, 1913
PDF viewer is not available.
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Related Cases
AI Assist
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
PDF viewer is not available.
Oral Transcripts
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Related Cases
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Ask Etalia.ai
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Audio of Oral Arguments
Free Trial!
Become a Sponsor

Support Us
Copyright © 2026Etalia.ai All Rights Reserved
  • Blog
  • •
  • Privacy
  • •
  • Terms