365 F. Supp. 2d 448 - Carruthers v. Flaum’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

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

1. “Plaintiffs contend that, because they do not fall within the ambit of IGRA, the Supreme Court’s decision in Caba-zon permits the tribe to conduct whatever gaming it likes on its ancestral lands. But they are wrong.... Caba-zon itself applies only to gaming activities conducted by federally-recognized Indian tribes on land that the federal government recognizes as reservation land.... Cabazon by its terms has no applicability to this case, which involves a tribe that is not federally recognized as a sovereign nation, and whose ancestral lands have not been recognized by the federal government. Gaming activities on land that is not federally recognized as tribal lands remains within the State’s historic right to regulate this controversial type of economic activities.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 523 F. Supp. 2d 185 - New York v. Shinnecock Indian Nation

2. ““Because the Unkechaug are not federally-recognized, they are neither sovereign nor can they claim preemption from state laws forbidding gambling that is extended to federally-recognized tribes by the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (“IGRA”), 25 U.S.C. §§ 2701 , et seq. And lacking both sovereignty and the benefit of IGRA preemption, they are subject to New York’s strict prohibition against gaming, just like anyone else.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 388 F. Supp. 2d 360 - Carruthers v. Flaum

3. “The Unkechaug are not a federally recognized tribe. Therefore, IGRA provides no exception for the Unkechaugs from the general prohibition on gambling in New York State.”). Thus, plaintiffs' cause of action lies in violations of New York anti-gambling law in light of the inapplicability of IGRA, not in any right of action under IGRA. 71 . To the extent that defendants similarly contend that they have an”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 523 F. Supp. 2d 185 - New York v. Shinnecock Indian Nation