Wacondo v. Concha’s Empirical Analysis
1994
Citation profile
2 district · 19 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 23 later decisions — most recently November 2022
2 district · 19 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 25 U.S.C. § 450 (§ 2 of the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act of 1975) · 25 U.S.C. § 450B (§ 4 of the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act of 1975) · 28 U.S.C. § 1360
Relies on Silkwood v. Corporation · Williams v. Lee · Bryan v. Itasca County · Fisher v. District Court of Sixteenth Judicial District of Montana in and for County of Rosebud Adoption of Firecrow · Three Affiliated Tribes of the Fort Berthold Reservation v. Wold Engineering, P. C.
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 23 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The facts here compel the conclusion that the "nonmember" Defendant cannot require Plaintiffs to forego their option of seeking redress in state district court. Nothing in our decision implies the Jemez Pueblo is in any way limited in providing a forum or remedies in this dispute. Our holding is merely that neither federal law nor tribal sovereignty precludes Indian plaintiffs from pursuing their state remedies against a nonmember Indian in state court.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. MILNE v. HUDSON“Public Law 280 was intended as an expansion of state jurisdictions for disputes involving reservation Indians and not as a prohibition on exercising jurisdiction the state would otherwise possess. It is therefore difficult to determine how providing a state forum for tribal members who wish to sue a nonmember Indian conflicts with the goals or purposes of Public Law 280.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“[i]n matters not affecting either the Federal Government or the tribal relations, an Indian has the same status to sue and be sued in state courts as any other citizen.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. MILNE v. HUDSON
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.