Srader v. Verant’s Empirical Analysis
1998
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 4 district · 33 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 39 later decisions — most recently March 2023 · most notably Gallegos v. Pueblo of Tesuque (2002), Azar v. Prudential Insurance Co. of America (2003)
2 federal appellate · 4 district · 33 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 18 U.S.C. § 1166 (§ 23 of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act of 1988) · 25 U.S.C. § 2702 (§ 3 of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act of 1988) · 25 U.S.C. § 2710 (§ 11 of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act of 1988)
Relies on Seminole Tribe of Florida v. Florida · Rice v. Santa Fe Elevator Corp. · Cipollone v. Liggett Group, Inc. · Santa Clara Pueblo v. Martinez · New York State Conference of Blue Cross & Blue Shield Plans v. Travelers Insurance
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 39 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[T]he court shall determine whether in equity and good conscience the action should proceed among the parties before it, or should be dismissed, the absent person being thus regarded as indispensable. The factors to be considered by the court include: first, to what extent a judgment rendered in the person’s absence might be prejudicial to him or those already parties; second, the extent to which, by protective provisions in the judgment, by the shaping of relief, or other measures, the prejudice can be lessened or avoided; third, whether a judgment rendered in the person’s absence will be adequate; fourth, whether the plaintiff will have an adequate remedy if the action is dismissed for nonjoinder.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage“A person who is subject to service of process shall be joined as a party in the action if: (1) in his absence complete relief cannot be accorded among those already parties; or (2) he claims an interest relating to the subject of the action and is so situated that the disposition of the action in his absence may: (a) as a practical matter impair or impede his ability to protect that interest; or (b) leave any of the persons already parties subject to a substantial risk of incurring double, multiple or otherwise inconsistent obligations by reason of his claimed interest.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“In a mandamus case, a party is indispensable if the “performance of an act [to be compelled by the writ of mandamus is] dependent on the will of a third party, not before the court.” Chavez v. Baca, 47 N.M. 471, 482 , 144 P.2d 175, 182 (1943). That is not the case here. Petitioners seek a writ of mandamus against the Governor of New Mexico, not against any of the tribal officials. Resolution of this case requires only that we evaluate the Governor’s authority under New Mexico law to enter into the compacts and agreements absent legislative authorization or ratification.”
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.