State v. Madsen’s Empirical Analysis
2009
Citation profile
14 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 25 U.S.C. § 1302 (§ 202 of the Indian Civil Rights Act of 1968) · 25 U.S.C. § 2701 (§ 2 of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act of 1988) · 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)
Relies on Terry v. Ohio · Wong Sun v. United States · United States v. Leon · Mapp v. Ohio · Ornelas 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 15 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“No Indian tribe in exercising powers of self-government shall ... violate the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable search and seizures, nor issue warrants, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the person or thing to be seized.”
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.