Anderson v. Gladden’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

17 federal appellate · 9 district · 5 state decisions

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

1. ““[a] Each of the States or Territories listed in the following table shall have jurisdiction over offenses committed by or against Indians in the areas of Indian country listed opposite the name of the State or Territory to the same extent that such State or Territory has jurisdiction over offenses committed elsewhere within the State or Territory, and the criminal laws of such State or Territory shall have the same force and effect within such Indian country as they have elsewhere within the State or Territory: State or Territory Indian country affected. $ $ $ * * Nebraska All indian country within the State. “[b] Nothing in this section shall authorize the alienation, encumbrance, or taxation of any real or personal property, including water rights, belonging to any Indian or any Indian tribe, band, or community that is held in trust by the United States or is subject to a restriction against alienation imposed by the United States; or shall authorize regulation of the use of such property in a manner inconsistent with any Federal Treaty, agreement, or statute or with any regulation made pursuant thereto; or shall deprive any Indian or any Indian tribe, band, or community of any right, privilege, or immunity afforded under Federal treaty, agreement, or statute with respect to hunting, trapping, or fishing or the control, licensing, or regulation thereof. “ [c] The provisions of sections 1152 and 1153 of this chapter shall not be applicable within the areas of Indian country”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. United States v. Burland · 334 F. Supp. 823 - Omaha Tribe of Nebraska v. Village of Walthill

2. ““In unambiguous terms, Public Law 280 [ 18 U.S.C. § 1162 ] withdrew federal jurisdiction over offenses committed in specified areas of Indian country by the grant of exclusive jurisdiction therein to five designated states. “In our view, this unambiguous statutory language is not obscured because Congress in the following year enacted legislation which provided comprehensive procedures for the termination of federal supervision over the property of the Klamath Indian Tribe and its members and for the termination of federal services furnished such Indians because of their status as Indians. . “The 1954 [termination] enactment dealt with the relationship between the Klamath Indian Tribe and its members and the United States as the relationship then existed. But by then, pursuant to Public Law 280, any treaty right these Indians may have had to be tried in a federal court had already been terminated.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 389 F. Supp. 784 - In Re Nacotee for a Writ of Habeas Corpus

3. ““We further agree with the state court’s holding on the question of the power of Congress to relinquish this jurisdiction [i. e., to enact P.L. 280] in favor of the states. The power over Indians was deemed not so inherently or exclusively federal as to apply beyond the extent to which the federal government has preempted the field, and the federal government could thus withdraw from the field and turn the subject matter back to the states when it chose to do so.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Agua Caliente Band of Mission Indians' Tribal Council v. City of Palm Springs