Fletcher v. United States’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

31 federal appellate · 25 district · 1 state decisions

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 92 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “are barred in the absence of an unequivocally expressed waiver by the tribe or abrogation by Congress.”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Douglas Dry · Citizen Potawatomi Nation Federally Recognized Indian Tribe v. Gale a Norton Secretary of the Interior William Sinclair Director of the Office of Self Governances

2. “Generally Rule 12(b)(1) motions to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction take two forms. First a facial attack on the complaint’s allegations as to subject matter jurisdiction questions the sufficiency of the complaint. In reviewing a facial attack on the complaint, a district court must accept the allegations in the complaint as true. Second, a party may go beyond allegations contained in the complaint and challenge the facts upon which subject matter jurisdiction depends. When reviewing a factual attack on subject matter jurisdiction, a district court may not presume the truthfulness of the complaint’s factual allegations. A court has wide discretion to allow affidavits, other documents, and a limited evidentiary hearing to resolve disputed jurisdictional facts under Rule 12(b)(1). In such instances, a court’s reference to evidence outside the pleadings does not convert the motion to a Rule 56 motion. However, a court is required to convert a Rule 12(b)(1) motion to dismiss into a Rule 56 motion when resolution of the jurisdictional question is intertwined with the merits of the case.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Ordinance 59 Ass'n v. Babbitt · 51 F. Supp. 2d 1217 - E.F.W. v. St. Stephen's Mission Indian High School

3. “Because the relief requested by Individual Plaintiffs, concerning rights to vote in future tribal elections and hold tribal office, if granted, would run against the Tribe itself, the Tribe’s sovereign immunity protects these defendants [tribal officers] in their official capacity. See Kenai Oil and Gas, Inc. v. Department of the Interior, 522 F.Supp. 521, 531 (D.Utah 1981) (“Tribal immunity may not be evaded by suing tribal officers.... ”), aff'd, 671 F.2d 383 (10th Cir.1982).... Thus, Tribal Defendants were entitled to sovereign immunity as far as the official capacity claims, unless there is an unequivocally expressed waiver either by the Tribe or abrogation by Congress.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Ordinance 59 Ass'n v. Babbitt · Aroostook Band of Micmacs v. Ryan