110 Wash. 2d 907 - State v. Sohappy’s Empirical Analysis
1988
Citation profile
16 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 16 later decisions — most recently March 2018
16 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Applies 16 U.S.C. § 3372 · 18 U.S.C. § 1151 (Indian Crimes Act of 1976) · 18 U.S.C. § 1152 · 18 U.S.C. § 1153 · 18 U.S.C. § 13 (Assimilative Crimes Act)
Relies on Young v. United States ex rel. Vuitton · Washington v. Confederated Bands & Tribes of the Yakima Indian Nation · United States v. John · United States v. Sam Pelican · Washington v. Confederated Bands & Tribes of the Yakima Indian Nation
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 16 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“At the outset we note two points: (1) Our holding is narrowly limited to the in-lieu site here involved. We so restrict our holding because of the Ninth Circuit decision upon which we rely, cited hereafter. (2) The State's 4-page brief is of no use to this court. It cites not a single case.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Cooper · State v. Cooper“Indians when on their tribal lands or allotted lands within an established Indian reservation and held in trust by the United States.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“(a) all land within the limits of any Indian reservation under the jurisdiction of the United States Government, notwithstanding the issuance of any patent, and, including rights-of-way running through the reservation, (b) all dependent Indian communities within the borders of the United States whether within the original or subsequently acquired territory thereof, and whether within or without the limits of a state, and (c) all Indian allotments, the Indian titles to which have not been extinguished, including rights-of way running through the same. [5]”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Cooper · State v. Cooper
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.