Tomac v. Norton’s Empirical Analysis
2002
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 11 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 22 later decisions — most recently October 2024
2 federal appellate · 11 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. § 1300J · 25 U.S.C. § 1300J · 25 U.S.C. § 2703 (§ 4 of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act of 1988) · 25 U.S.C. § 2710 (§ 11 of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act of 1988) · 25 U.S.C. § 2719 (§ 20 of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act of 1988) · 28 U.S.C. § 1404 · 42 U.S.C. § 4332 (§ 102 of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969)
Relies on Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife · Citizens to Preserve Overton Park, Inc. v. Volpe · Association of Data Processing Service Organizations, Inc. v. Camp · Hunt v. Washington State Apple Advertising Commission · Bennett v. Spear
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 22 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The necessary linkage is easy to identify.... TOMAC members’ injuries due to operation of the casino are traceable to the Bureau! of Indian Affairsj’s actions, because the taking of the site in trust is a necessary prerequisite to both Class II and Class III gaming, 25 U.S.C. § 2710 (b)(1), (d)(1), and because taking the land into trust would give the Pokagon authority to compel the State of Michigan to negotiate over Class III gaming. These factors not only establish that the individual TOMAC members’ injuries would be “fairly traceable” to the defendant’s actions, but they also help to satisfy the redressability requirement — since a decision not to take the land in trust would prevent the Pokagon from building a casino on that site and from satisfying the requirements of IGRA for casino gambling.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“immediately adjacent to a specific development project that will significantly and permanently alter the physical environment of their neighborhood.” Id. at 187, n. 1 . Unlike here, the Tomac court was not left to speculate whether in fact an interest in the casino property existed and how that interest would be injured. 20 . Defendants further argue that even if the EPHS Ordinance was revocable and unenforceable,”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“was unfairly terminated as a result of both faulty and inconsistent administrative decisions contrary to the intent of the Congress, federal Indian law and the trust responsibility of the United States.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Tomac v. Norton
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.