Mudarri v. State’s Empirical Analysis
2008
Citation profile
4 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 25 U.S.C. § 2701 (§ 2 of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act of 1988) · 25 U.S.C. § 2710 (§ 11 of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act of 1988)
Relies on Daniels v. Williams · United States v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. · Oklahoma Tax Commission v. Citizen Band Potawatomi Indian Tribe of Oklahoma · California v. Cabazon Band of Mission Indians · Frey v. United States
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 4 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) the extent to which a judgment rendered in the party’s absence might be prejudicial to that party or to those already parties; (2) the extent to which the prejudice can be lessened or avoided by protective provisions in the judgment, by shaping of relief, or other measures; (3) whether a judgment rendered in the party’s absence will be adequate; and (4) whether the plaintiff will have an adequate remedy if the action is dismissed for nonjoinder.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“`life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.'”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.