Roe v. Doe’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

24 state decisions

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

1. “exclusive jurisdiction over wholly internal tribal subject matter, such as membership disputes, divorce actions between members domiciled on the reservation, and certain probate actions.”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. Peltier · WREN v. YATES

2. “In considering the facts of the present case, as it impacts the Court's analysis to the issue of jurisdiction between the state court and tribal court, the Court notes one important fact not argued by either party. Neither of the parties or the child are enrolled members of the Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa Indians. The Defendant testifies by his affidavit that he is an enrolled member of the Crow Nation, but eligible for enrollment with the Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa Indians. The Defendant further testifies that both mother and child are enrolled members of the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe. Thus, while conception may have occurred within the boundaries of the Turtle Mountain Indian Reservation, and the parties have lived within those same boundaries, vitally important to the Court's analysis is the fact that none of the parties are enrolled members of the Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa Indians. .... The present case does not impact the issue of paternity of the child, and the evidence establishes that neither of the parents, or the child, are enrolled member of the Turtle Mountain Tribe. In this case, the state has commenced an action against the Defendant to obtain reimbursement for public funds expended for the child, and to ensure that the Defendant makes his child support payments. The exercise of state court jurisdiction in this matter doesn't seem to "undermine the authority of the tribal courts over reservation affairs and thereby infringe on the right of the ”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Peltier

3. “We based our decisions in McKenzie County Social Services Bd. v. V.G.[, 392 N.W.2d 399 (N.D.1986) ], In re M.L.M.[, 529 N.W.2d 184 (N.D.1995) ], and McKenzie County Social Service Bd. v. C.G.[, 2001 ND 151 , 633 N.W.2d 157 ,] on the infringement test of Williams v. Lee, 358 U.S. 217 [ 79 S.Ct. 269 , 3 L.Ed.2d 251 ] (1959). See McKenzie County Social Services Bd. v. V.G., 392 N.W.2d at 402 (citing Williams, 358 U.S. at 223 [ 79 S.Ct. 269 ]). Under the infringement test, state court jurisdiction over certain claims is not allowed if it “would undermine the authority of the tribal courts over reservation affairs and thereby infringe on the right of the Indians to govern themselves.” See id. [[Image here]] Two common threads running through McKenzie County Social Services Bd. v. V.G., In re M.L.M., and McKenzie County Social Service Bd. v. C.G. are the mother, the alleged father, and the child were all members of the same Indian tribe and the conduct giving rise to the paternity action occurred on that tribe’s reservation.... Thus, in an action to determine the paternity of a child where the mother, child, and putative father are all members of the same tribe and the cause of action arose on that tribe’s reservation, state court jurisdiction would undoubtedly infringe on the tribe’s right to govern itself[.]”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. B.B.