Gobin’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

1 district ·

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

1. “Congress’s decision to make Indian fee lands freely ahenable is not an express authorization or otherwise an “unmistakably clear” indication that the County may enforce its in rem land use regulations over those lands. Unlike the inextricably linked concepts of (forced) alienation and taxation found in County of Yakima, alienation and plenary in rem land use regulation are entirely unrelated. Thus, we hold that the right of Indians to alienate their lands freely does not provide the County with a concomitant right to exert in rem land use regulation over those lands.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Oneida Tribe of Indians v. Village of Hobart

2. “necessarily limits the scope of permissible encumbrances [to][e]ncum- brances with respect to land or encumbrances of the transactions involving land or based on the value of land.” Id. at 916-17 . Thus, Gobin actually contradicts Defendants’ argument that”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 510 F. Supp. 2d 18 - GasPlus, L.L.C. v. United States Department of the Interior

3. “inherent ambiguity in the word 'encumbrance' standing alone,” the statute in question used the phrase”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 510 F. Supp. 2d 18 - GasPlus, L.L.C. v. United States Department of the Interior