290 F. Supp. 2d 167 - Carcieri v. Norton’s Empirical Analysis
2003
Citation profile
3 federal appellate · 1 district · 1 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 16 U.S.C. § 1451 (Coastal and Estuarine Land Conservation Program Act) · 16 U.S.C. § 1456 · 18 U.S.C. § 1151 (Indian Crimes Act of 1976) · 25 U.S.C. § 1701 (Rhode Island Indian Claims Settlement Act) · 25 U.S.C. § 1702 · 25 U.S.C. § 1705 · 25 U.S.C. § 1707 · 25 U.S.C. § 1708
Relies on Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. · Celotex Corporation v. Catrett H · Citizens to Preserve Overton Park, Inc. v. Volpe · Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Association of United States Inc v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company Consumer Alert · Morton v. Mancari
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 6 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[a]lthough the possibility that the parcel might be used for gaming activities was raised before the BIA, the bureau's determination that the parcel would be used to provide housing was amply supported by the record. In view of the deferential standard of review afforded to agency decisions under the APA, the bureau's determination in this regard must be sustained.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[u]pon the discharge of the Secretary's duties under §§ 1704-1706, and 1707 of this title, the United States shall have no further duties or liabilities under this subchapter with respect to the Indian Corporation or its successor, the State Corporation, or the settlement lands....”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“), 25 U.S.C. §§ 2710-2721, in its decision was an abuse of discretion. The State argues that the Secretary's decision to acquire the Parcel in trust should be reversed and that further inquiry into whether the Parcel would be used for gaming purposes is required. We disagree. 123 There is no evidence that the Tribe intended to use the Parcel for anything other than tribal housing, as determined by the BIA.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Carcieri v. Norton
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.