State v. Youngbear’s Empirical Analysis
1975
Citation profile
4 federal appellate · 17 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 24 later decisions — most recently May 2018
4 federal appellate · 17 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 18 U.S.C. § 1151 (Indian Crimes Act of 1976) · 18 U.S.C. § 1153 · 18 U.S.C. § 3243
Relies on Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera · Ungar v. Sarafite · United States v. Kagama · Roberts v. Florida · United States v. McGowan
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 24 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“An Act . . . That jurisdiction is hereby conferred on the State of Iowa over offenses committed by or against Indians on the Sac and Fox Indian Reservation in that State to the same extent as its courts have jurisdiction generally over offenses committed within said State outside of any Indian reservation: Provided, however, That nothing • herein contained shall deprive the courts of the United States of jurisdiction over offenses defined by the laws of the United States committed by or against Indians on Indian reservations. (Emphasis added.)”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“‘Indian [cjountry’ within the meaning of the term used in [§ 1153] is defined in [§ 1151]. The application of the ‘Indian [c]ountry’ definition does not depend upon the manner in which the land in question was acquired, but rather on whether such land has been, as was the [Settlement] in this ease, set apart for the use and occupancy of Indians. See United States v. McGowan, 302 U.S. 535 , 58 S.Ct. 286 , 82 L.Ed. 410 [ (1938) ]. We conclude the [Settlement] meets the statutory definition of ‘Indian [c]ountry’ as construed by the courts.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“Generally, continuances will not be granted for a want of defense preparation in the absence of a showing of good excuse. We observe defense counsel did not accompany his motion with affidavits establishing prior diligent effort, specific evidence sought, or a reasonable basis for believing the evidence could be procured.”
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.