310 F. Supp. 2d 77 - Cobell v. Norton’s Empirical Analysis
2004
Citation profile
4 federal appellate · 4 district ·
Relationships
Applies 25 U.S.C. § 162A · 28 U.S.C. § 1746 · 44 U.S.C. § 3544
Relies on Griggs v. Provident Consumer Discount Co. · Elouise Pepion Cobell, et al. v. Gale A. Norton, Secretary of the Interior, et al. · Eddy v. Colonial Life Insurance Co. of America · Venen v. Sweet · Mohamed al-Fayed and Punch Limited v. Central Intelligence Agency, et al.
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 10 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“the Special Master shall verify compliance with this Consent Order and may conduct interviews with Interior personnel or contractors or conduct site visits wherever information technology systems or individual Indian trust data is housed or accessed.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“). The March 15, 2004 injunction called for disconnection from the Internet of all Interior computers, with exceptions for (1) systems essential to protect against fire or other threats to life or property, and (2) IT systems of the National Park Service, the Office of Policy Management and Budget, and the United States Geological Survey. Id. at 100-01. The injunction further provides for reconnection if the Secretary submits and the court approves a suitable proposal. Id. at 101. In issuing the injunction, the district court rejected the Secretary's certifications as "procedurally and substantively defective,”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Cobell v. Norton“Id. at 81 n. 6. The Special Master also reported results from continued penetration testing in February and March 2003. Three external reports — a House Committee report, an Interior Report to the Office of Management and Budget, and a report by the General Accounting Office — advised of Interior's and other federal agencies' IT deficiencies. However, the Secretary points out, and the plaintiffs do not dispute, there was no evidence that anyone other than the Special Master's contractor had”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Cobell 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.