State v. Cooper’s Empirical Analysis
1996
Citation profile
6 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 6 later decisions — most recently September 2010
6 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. § 1151 (Indian Crimes Act of 1976) · 18 U.S.C. § 1162 · 25 U.S.C. § 1321 · 25 U.S.C. § 467 · 25 U.S.C. § 476 · 28 U.S.C. § 1360
Relies on Oklahoma Tax Commission v. Citizen Band Potawatomi Indian Tribe of Oklahoma · Young v. United States ex rel. Vuitton · DeCoteau v. District County Court for the Tenth Judicial District · Washington v. Confederated Bands & Tribes of the Yakima Indian Nation · 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 6 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[ State v. ] Sohappy does not, as Cooper suggests, hold that `reservation' includes all lands held in trust for the benefit of Indians.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Cooper · State v. Jim“interchangeably, other cases clearly indicate that they are not the same thing. See Tooisgah v. United States, 186 F.2d 93, 98 (10th Cir.1950). Furthermore, when RCW 37.12.010 was amended in 1963, Public Law 280 gave Washington the authority to assume nonconsensual civil and criminal jurisdiction over all Indian country in the state if the Legislature so chose. Therefore, a determination of whether the 1963 version of RCW 37.12.010 asserted state jurisdiction over particular Indian lands (or over particular areas of law) presents a question of state law. Federal interpretations of the term”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Cooper“for purposes of whether property was in Indian country. An Indian tribe challenged Oklahoma's authority to impose sales taxes on cigarettes sold at a store on trust land. Oklahoma had not asserted state jurisdiction over Indian country pursuant to Public Law 280. Nevertheless, the State argued that it had jurisdiction because the store was not within a formally established”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Cooper
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.