Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 117 SCT 1404 - Strate v. A-1 Contractors

Strate v. A-1 Contractors’s Empirical Analysis

1997

Citation profile

289
cited by 289 later decisions
2
cited 2 times by the Supreme Court
18
states following
August 2024
most recently cited

106 federal appellate · 53 district · 58 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 289 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently August 2024 · most notably Richards v. Wisconsin (1997), Strate v. A-1 Contractors (1997)

106 federal appellate · 53 district · 58 state decisions — followed in 18 states

14001997200020102020decided

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 18 U.S.C. § 1151 (Indian Crimes Act of 1976) · 25 U.S.C. § 1301 (§ 201 of the Indian Civil Rights Act of 1968) · 25 U.S.C. § 325 · 28 U.S.C. § 1331 · 28 U.S.C. § 1441

Relies on Williams v. Lee · Montana v. United States · National Farmers Union Insurance Companies 27 v. Crow Tribe of Indians · Washington v. Confederated Tribes of the Colville Indian Reservation · Iowa Mutual Insurance v. LaPlante

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

  1. “To be sure, Indian tribes retain inherent sovereign power to exercise some forms of civil jurisdiction over non-Indians on their reservations, even on non-Indian fee lands. A tribe may regulate, through taxation, licensing, or other means, the activities of nonmembers who enter consensual relationships with the tribe or its members, through commercial dealing, contracts, leases, or other arrangements. A tribe may also retain inherent power to exercise civil authority over the conduct of non-Indians on fee lands within its reservation when that conduct threatens or has some direct effect on the political integrity, the economic security, or the health or welfare of the tribe.”
    47 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “[a tribe's inherent power does not reach] beyond what is necessary to protect tribal self-government or to control internal relations.”
    26 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “Montana thus described a general rule that, absent a different congressional direction, Indian tribes lack civil authority over the conduct of nonmembers on non-Indian land within a reservation, subject to two exceptions: The first exception relates to nonmembers who enter consensual relationships with the tribe or its members; the second concerns activity that directly affects the tribe’s political integrity, economic security, health, or welfare.”
    21 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority

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.