State v. Buchanan’s Empirical Analysis
1999
Citation profile
3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 7 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently May 2019
3 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
Relies on Washington v. Washington State Commercial Passenger Fishing Vessel Assn. · United States v. Lineas Winans · Ray Jones v. Patrick Meehan · Antoine v. Washington · Puyallup Tribe v. Department of Game of Wash.
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 7 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“In its motion the State argues that defendant Buchanan should not be permitted to raise the defense that he has a treaty right to hunt because the Nooksack Tribe was not a signatory to the Treaty of Point Elliott. Defendant Buchanan responded to the motion and, additionally, moved for sanctions against the State, arguing the motion was frivolous and made for purposes of delay. Both motions were passed to the merits. ISSUES 1. What is the geographic scope of the Nooksack Indian Tribe's treaty hunting right? 2. Is the State-owned Oak Creek Wildlife Area”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Buchanan“and that this treaty right is superior to the right of the State to regulate hunting. The State makes essentially three arguments. First, it argues that any treaty hunting right that exists in the Nooksack Tribe should be interpreted to permit hunting only on open and unclaimed land within the area ceded to the United States by the tribe, or upon land which the tribe has traditionally hunted. Second, the State argues that even if the treaty affords a right to hunt outside the ceded area, the Oak Creek Wildlife Area is not”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Buchanan“with the original states. We reverse the dismissal of the criminal action and remand for trial. We hold that, on remand, the defendant may raise a treaty right to hunt as a defense to the criminal charges and may offer evidence in support of his position that the Oak Creek Wildlife Area is within the aboriginal hunting grounds of the Nooksack Tribe. We also hold that under the facts presented in this case, the Oak Creek Wildlife Area is”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Buchanan
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.