Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 1998 SD 46 - Wright v. Prairie Chicken

Wright v. Prairie Chicken’s Empirical Analysis

1998

Citation profile

8
cited by 8 later decisions
2
states following
February 2021
most recently cited

2 district · 2 state decisions

Relationships

Applies 25 U.S.C. § 450 (§ 2 of the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act of 1975) · 25 U.S.C. § 450B (§ 4 of the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act of 1975) · 25 U.S.C. § 450F (§ 102 of the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act of 1975)

Relies on Larson v. Domestic & Foreign Commerce Corp. · Santa Clara Pueblo v. Martinez · United States v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. · Department of Revenue of Montana v. Ranch · Puyallup Tribe, Inc. v. Department of Game of Washington

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 8 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “[Cjourts generally consider such factors as whether: the entity is organized under the tribe’s laws or constitution rather than Federal law; the organization’s purposes are similar to or serve those of the tribal government; the organization’s governing body is comprised mainly of tribal officials; the tribe has legal title or ownership of property used by the organization; tribal officials exercise control over the administration or accounting activities of the organization; and the tribe’s governing body has power to dismiss members of the organization’s governing body. More importantly, courts will consider whether the corporate entity generates its own revenue, whether a suit against the corporation will impact the tribe’s fiscal resources, and whether the sub-entity has the power to bind or obligate the funds of the tribe. The vulnerability of the tribe’s coffers in defending a suit against the sub-entity indicates that the real party in interest is the tribe.”
    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.