Infinity Group, Inc. v. Manzagol’s Empirical Analysis
1994
Citation profile
6 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 25 U.S.C. § 2703 (§ 4 of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act of 1988)
Relies on Thompson v. Virginia · Russell v. Protective Insurance · New Mexico Pharmaceutical Ass'n v. State · Sclavenitis v. City of Cherry Hills Village Board of Adjustment & Appeals · Cabazon Band of Mission Indians v. National Indian Gaming Commission
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 6 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““game of chance” means that specific kind of game of chance commonly known as bingo or lotto in which prizes are awarded on the basis of designated numbers or symbols on a card conforming to numbers or symbols selected at random and that specific kind of game of chance commonly known as raffles which is conducted by drawing for prizes or the allotment of prizes by chance or by the selling of shares, tickets or rights to participate in the game[.]”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.