Littell v. Nakai’s Empirical Analysis
344 F.2d 486 · 1965
Citation profile
44 federal appellate · 12 district · 10 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 83 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently December 2021 · most notably Stock West, Inc. v. Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation (1989), Morongo Band of Mission Indians v. California State Board of Equalization (1988)
44 federal appellate · 12 district · 10 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 25 U.S.C. § 81 · 28 U.S.C. § 1331 · 28 U.S.C. § 1332 (Class Action Fairness Act of 2005)
Relies on Gully v. First Nat. Bank in Meridian · Williams v. Lee · Cohens v. Virginia · United States v. Kagama · Woods v. Interstate Realty Co.
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 83 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The federal nature of the right to be established is decisive not the source of the authority to establish it.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[T]he exclusive tribal jurisdiction may be altered by express declaration of Congress. Littell urges that the diversity statute is just such a declaration.... [But] even after granting that Littell’s suit falls within the letter of the diversity statute, we believe that the basic principle of diversity jurisdiction requires reference of the suit to the Navajo Tribal Courts.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[W]here ... one is barred from recovery in the state court, he should likewise be barred in the federal court. The contrary result would create discriminations against citizens of the State in favor of those authorized to invoke the diversity jurisdiction of the federal courts. It was that element of discrimination that Erie R. Co. v. Tompkins was designed to eliminate.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.