Colliflower v. Garland’s Empirical Analysis
342 F.2d 369 · 1965
Citation profile
37 federal appellate · 18 district · 7 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 67 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently August 2017 · most notably Santa Clara Pueblo v. Martinez (1978), United States v. Wheeler (1978)
37 federal appellate · 18 district · 7 state decisions
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
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 1152 · 25 U.S.C. § 13 · 25 U.S.C. § 200 · 25 U.S.C. § 476 · 25 U.S.C. § 71 · 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 8 U.S.C. § 1401 (§ 301 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (McCarran-Walter))
Relies on Hurtado v. People of the State of California · Williams v. Lee · United States v. Kagama · United States v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. · Samuel Worcester v. The State of Georgia
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 67 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[i]n spite of the theory that for some purposes an Indian tribe is an independent sovereignty, we think that, in the light of their history, it is pure fiction to say that the Indian courts functioning in the Fort Belknap Indian community are not in part, at least, arms of the federal government.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““In addition to all powers vested in any Indian tribe or tribal eounsil by existing law, the constitution adopted by said tribe shall also vest in such tribe or its tribal council the following rights and powers: To employ legal counsel, the choice of counsel and fixing of fees to be subject to the approval of the Secretary of the Interior; to prevent the sale, disposition, lease, or encumbrance of tribal lands, interests in lands, or other tribal assets without the consent of the tribe; and to negotiate with the Federal, State, and local Governments. The Secretary of the Interior shall advise such tribe or its tribal council of all appropriation estimates or Federal projects for the benefit of the tribe prior to the submission of such estimates to the Bureau of the Budget and the Congress.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““[T]hese courts function in part as a federal agency and in part as a tribal agency, and that consequently it is competent for a federal court in a habeas corpus proceeding to inquire into the legality of the detention of an Indian pursuant to an order of an Indian court. We confine our decision to the courts of the Fort Belknap reservation. The history of other Indian courts may call for a different ruling, a question which is not before us.” ( 342 F.2d 369, 379 )”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Dodge v. Nakai
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.