United States ex rel. Standing Bear v. Crook
Significance, Indians Are "persons", Impact, The Dawes Severalty Act, Further Readings
Standing Bear and other Ponca Indians
George Crook, U.S. Army General
That confinement of American Indians by the U.S. Army violated the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Chief Lawyers for Petitioners
John L. Webster, Andrew J. Poppleton
Chief Lawyer for Respondent
Genio M. Lambertson
Justice for the Court
Elmer S. Dundy
Date of Decision
12 May 1879
The Court upheld Standing Bear's claim and ordered the Poncas released from U.S. custody.
- Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857).
- Lone Wolf v. Hitchcock, 187 U.S. 553 (1903).
- United States v. Omaha Tribe of Indians, 253 U.S. 275 (1920).
- United States v. Sioux Nation of Indians, 448 U.S. 371 (1980).
Bacon, Donald C., et al., eds. The Encyclopedia of the United States Congress. New York: Simon & Schuster, 1995.
- United States v. Anthony - Significance, The Almighty Vote, Preparation For Trial, The Trial, The Supreme Court Looks At Women And The Fourteenth Amendment
- U.S. v. Susan B. Anthony: 1873 - "i Have Been Gone Done It!", Stumping Before The Trial, Trial Begins June 17
- United States ex rel. Standing Bear v. Crook - Significance
- United States ex rel. Standing Bear v. Crook - Further Readings
- United States ex rel. Standing Bear v. Crook - Indians Are "persons"
- United States ex rel. Standing Bear v. Crook - Impact
- United States ex rel. Standing Bear v. Crook - The Dawes Severalty Act
- Other Free Encyclopedias