Question: What do United States v. Nixon and Lone Wolf v. Hitchcock have in common?

Context articles: United States v. Nixon
United States v. R. Enterprises, Inc.
Lone Wolf the Younger
Lone Wolf v. Hitchcock
Criminal law in the Marshall Court
Wolf v. Colorado
Lone Wolf, Oklahoma
United States v. Binion
Criminal law in the Waite Court
United States v. American Bell Telephone Co.

United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683 (1974), was a landmark United States Supreme Court decision which resulted in a unanimous 8–0 ruling against President Richard Nixon, ordering him to deliver presidential tape recordings and other subpoenaed materials to the District Court.
 Issued on July 24, 1974, the ruling was important to the late stages of the Watergate scandal, when there was an ongoing impeachment process against Richard Nixon.
 "United States v. Nixon" is considered a crucial precedent limiting the power of any U.S. president to claim executive privilege.
United States v. R. Enterprises, Inc., 498 U.S. 292 (1991), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that the three prong test for the issuance of a subpoena in "United States v. Nixon" does not apply to subpoenas issued by a grand jury.
 The Court concluded by stating that when a grand jury subpoena is challenged on relevancy grounds, the motion to quash must be denied “unless the district court determines that there is no reasonable possibility that the materials sought will produce information relevant to the grand jury's investigation.”
Lone Wolf the Younger (ca. 1843-1923) was a Kiowa.
 Lone Wolf the Younger was a warrior named Mamay-day-te.
 In 1872, Mamay-day-te saved the son of Old Chief Lone Wolf, Gui-pah-gah, the Elder, during a skirmish with teamsters at Howard Wells, New Mexico.
 Two years later, the son of the Old Chief Lone Wolf, Gui-pah-gah, the Elder and his nephew were killed by American Troops.
 Mamay-day-te was among the raid avenging the deaths and counted his first coup during the attack.
 Old Chief Lone Wolf, Gui-pah-gah, the Elder gave his name to Mamay-day-te.
 Lone Wolf the Younger led the Kiowa resistance to United States governmental influence on the reservation, which culminated up to the Supreme Court case Lone Wolf v. Hitchcock.
Lone Wolf v. Hitchcock, 187 U.S. 553 (1903) was a United States Supreme Court case brought against the US government by the Kiowa chief Lone Wolf, who charged that Native American tribes under the Medicine Lodge Treaty had been defrauded of land by Congressional actions in violation of the treaty.
The Marshall Court (1801–1835) heard forty-one criminal law cases, slightly more than one per year.
 Among such cases are "United States v. Simms" (1803), "United States v. More" (1805), "Ex parte Bollman" (1807), "United States v. Hudson" (1812), "Cohens v. Virginia" (1821), "United States v. Perez" (1824), "Worcester v. Georgia" (1832), and "United States v. Wilson" (1833).
Wolf v. Colorado, 338 U.S. 25 (1949) was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held 6-3 that, while the Fourth Amendment was applicable to the states, the exclusionary rule was not a necessary ingredient of the Fourth Amendment's right against warrantless and unreasonable searches and seizures.
 In Weeks v. United States 232 U.S. 383 (1914) the Court held that as a matter of judicial implication the exclusionary rule was enforceable in federal courts but not derived from the explicit requirements of the Fourth Amendment.
 The Wolf Court decided not to incorporate the exclusionary rule as part of the Fourth Amendment in large part because the States which had rejected the Weeks Doctrine (the exclusionary rule) had not left the right to privacy without other means of protection (i.e. the States had their own rules to deter police officers from conducting warrantless and unreasonable searches and seizures).
 However, because most of the States' rules proved to be ineffective in deterrence, the Court overruled Wolf in Mapp v. Ohio 367 U.S. 643 (1961).
 This landmark case made the exclusionary rule enforceable against the States through the Due Process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the same extent that it applied against the federal government.
Lone Wolf is a town in Kiowa County, Oklahoma, United States.
 The population was 438 at the 2010 census, a decline of 12.4 percent from 500 at the 2000 census.
 The town was named for Chief Lone Wolf (1843–1923), a warrior chief of the Kiowa who fought to preserve his people's autonomy and way of life.
United States v. Binion, 132 F. App'x 89 (8th Cir.
 2005), is a case in which the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit applied two recent U.S. Supreme Court decisions ("United States v. Booker", 543 U.S. 220 (2005) and "United States v. Fanfan", 543 U.S. 220 (2005) in reviewing the sentencing decision by the trial court and upheld by the Federal District Court for the Eastern District.
During the tenure of Morrison Waite as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States (March 4, 1874 through March 23, 1888), the Supreme Court heard an unprecedented volume and frequency of criminal cases.
 In just fourteen years, the Court heard 106 criminal cases, almost as many cases as the Supreme Court had heard in the period from its creation to the appointment of Waite as Chief Justice.
 Notable cases include "United States v. Cruikshank" (1875), "United States v. Reese" (1875), "Reynolds v. United States" (1878), "Wilkerson v. Utah" (1879), the "Trade-Mark Cases" (1879), "Strauder v. West Virginia" (1880), "Pace v. Alabama" (1883), "United States v. Harris" (1883), "Ex parte Crow Dog" (1883), "Hurtado v. California" (1884), "Clawson v. United States" (1885), "Yick Wo v. Hopkins" (1886), "United States v. Kagama" (1886), "Ker v. Illinois" (1886), and "Mugler v. Kansas" (1887).
United States v. Bell Telephone Co., 167 U.S. 224 (1897), is an 1897 decision of the United States Supreme Court that held that the United States lacked standing to challenge the validity of its issued patents “on the mere ground of error of judgment” in issuing them.
 The United States had standing to seek to invalidate patents, however, on grounds of fraudulent procurement and also as a defense to a charge of patent infringement.
 The decision operated for many decades as a bar to government efforts to seek invalidation of patents that it considered spurious until the Supreme Court limited "Bell Telephone", first to a limited extent in "United States v. United States Gypsum Co.", and then more broadly in "United States v. Glaxo Group Ltd."