State v. Frank’s Empirical Analysis
2001
Citation profile
11 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 1151 · 18 U.S.C. § 1153
Relies on North Carolina v. Alford · United States v. Mazurie · Harper v. Virginia Department of Taxation · United States v. McGowan · Alaska v. Native Village of Venetie Tribal Government
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 11 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) the district court did not follow the mandate of [the Court of Appeals] in the first appeal of the case because it did not use the two-step analysis ordered in Frank [I]; (2) the district court's findings of fact are insufficient for it to have analyzed the jurisdiction issue under Venetie as applied in the Tenth Circuit; and (3) the area in question is a `dependent Indian community' as defined by 18 U.S.C. § 1151 , as a matter of law.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Frank“so-called because of its pattern of land owned or administered by the federal government, the Navajo Nation, Navajo allottees, the state, and private non-Indians.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Frank“our attention to land and its title and away from the more nebulous issue of community cohesiveness.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Frank
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.