Clinton v. Babbitt’s Empirical Analysis
180 F.3d 1081 · 1999
Citation profile
18 federal appellate · 9 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 55 later decisions — most recently September 2020 · most notably Disabled Rights Action Committee v. Las Vegas Events, Inc. (2004), Harold Dawavendewa Single Man v. Salt River Project Agricultural Improvement and Power District an Arizona (2002)
18 federal appellate · 9 district · 1 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 25 U.S.C. § 415 (Cherokee Leasing Act) · 25 U.S.C. § 640D (Navajo and Hopi Indian Relocation Amendments) · 28 U.S.C. § 1291 · 28 U.S.C. § 1331 · 5 U.S.C. § 702
Relies on Buckley v. Valeo · Bell v. Hood · Singleton v. Wulff · Bolling v. Sharpe · United States v. Mitchell
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 55 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) in the person’s absence complete relief cannot be accorded among those already parties, or (2) the person claims an interest relating to the subject of the action and is so situated that the disposition of the action in the person’s absence may (i) as a practical matter impair or impede the person’s ability to protect that interest or, (ii) leave any of the persons already'parties subject to a substantial risk of incurring double, multiple, or otherwise inconsistent obligations by reason of the claimed interest.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“because the Hopi Tribe enjoys sovereign immunity ... it cannot be joined as a party without its consent”); Kescoli v. Babbitt, 101 F.3d 1304, 1310 (9th Cir.1996); Wichita & Affiliated Tribes of Okla. v. Hodel, 788 F.2d 765, 771 (D.C.Cir.1986) (”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“(1) to what extent a judgment rendered in the person’s absence might be prejudicial to the person or those already parties; (2) 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; (3) whether a judgment rendered in the person’s absence will be adequate; (4) whether the plaintiff will have an adequate remedy if the action is dismissed for nonjoinder.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.