Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 109 F. Supp. 3d 152 - Patchak v. Kempthorne

109 F. Supp. 3d 152 - Patchak v. Kempthorne’s Empirical Analysis

2015

Citation profile

3
cited by 3 later decisions
1
cited 1 times by the Supreme Court
February 2018
most recently cited

1 federal appellate ·

Relationships

Applies 25 U.S.C. § 2702 (§ 3 of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act of 1988) · 25 U.S.C. § 2719 (§ 20 of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act of 1988) · 25 U.S.C. § 465 · 25 U.S.C. § 479 · 5 U.S.C. § 701 · 5 U.S.C. § 702

Relies on Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Environment · Elrod v. Burns · Landgraf v. USI Film Products · Logan v. Zimmerman Brush Co. · Mistretta v. United States

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 3 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “(a) IN GENERAL.—The land taken into trust by the United States for the benefit of the Match-E-Be-Nash-She-Wish Band of Pottawatomi Indians and described in the final Notice of Determination of the Department of the Interior ( 70 Fed. Reg. 25596 (May 13, 2005)) is reaffirmed as trust land, and the actions of the Secretary of the Interior in taking that land into trust are ratified and confirmed. (b) NO CLAIMS.—Notwithstanding any other provision of law, an action (including an action pending in a Federal court as of the date of enactment of this Act) relating to the land described in subsection (a) shall not be filed or maintained in a Federal court and shall be promptly dismissed. (c) RETENTION OF FUTURE RIGHTS.—Nothing in this Act alters or diminishes the right of the Match-E-Be-Nash-She-Wish Band of Pottawato-mi Indians from seeking to have any additional land taken into trust by the United States for the benefit of the Band.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
    e.g. Patchak v. Jewell · 424 U.S. App. D.C. 173 - David Patchak v. Sally Jewell

How this case has been treated — in progress

Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.