Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 255 F.3d 662 - United States v. Enas

United States v. Enas’s Empirical Analysis

255 F.3d 662 · 2001

Citation profile

38
cited by 38 later decisions
1
cited 1 times by the Supreme Court
April 2021
most recently cited

20 federal appellate · 7 district ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 38 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently April 2021 · most notably United States v. Lara (2004), United States v. Male Juvenile (2002)

20 federal appellate · 7 district ·

310200120102020decided

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

Relies on Huddleston v. United States · Morton v. Mancari · City of Boerne v. Flores · Collins v. Youngblood · Bartkus v. People of State of Illinois

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

  1. “the inherent power of Indian tribes... to exercise criminal jurisdiction over all Indians”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “It cannot be the case that Congress may override a constitutional decision by simply rewriting the history upon which it is based. For instance, Congress surely cannot negate the effect of a Fourth Amendment decision by penning its own account of the scope of lawful searches at the time of the Founding. Cf. Florida v. White, 526 U.S. 559 , 563-64, 119 S.Ct. 1555 , 143 L.Ed.2d 748 (1999) (“In deciding whether a challenged governmental action violates the [Fourth] Amendment, we have taken care to inquire whether the action was regarded as an unlawful search and seizure when the Amendment was framed.”).”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
  3. “doctrine does not apply; and the Double Jeopardy Clause bars the second prosecution. Id., at 640. The four dissenting judges, agreeing with the Federal Government, concluded that the Tribal Court had exercised inherent tribal power in prosecuting Lara; hence the”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence

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.