State v. Sebastian’s Empirical Analysis
1997
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 2 district · 35 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 46 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 2022 · most notably Kizis v. Morse Diesel International, Inc. (2002), Oklahoma v. Castro-Huerta (2022)
2 federal appellate · 2 district · 35 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. § 1152 · 18 U.S.C. § 1153 · 25 U.S.C. § 1301 (§ 201 of the Indian Civil Rights Act of 1968)
Relies on Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. · United States v. John · United States v. Rogers · Mashpee Tribe v. New Seabury Corp. · Schnabel v. Tyler
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 46 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Like all instrumentalities of the state of Connecticut, our courts are powerless to intervene in the exercise of tribal self-government. Federal statute, federal common law and state statute all require us to treat bona fide Indian tribes as sovereign nations and to protect tribal rights to self-determination. . . . Similarly, state statutes explicitly provide that the indigenous tribes, [including the Paucatuck Eastern Pequot Tribe] are self-governing entities possessing powers and duties over tribal members and reservations. . . . General Statutes § 47-59a (b). Any action by a state court that infringed on tribal sovereignty or interfered in tribal self-government would therefore be improper.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent“[w]here a statute confers jurisdiction over a general subject matter to an agency and that matter is a significant component of a dispute properly before the court, it is desirable that the agency and the court go down the same track — although at different times — to attain the statute's ends by their coordinated action”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
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.