Grand Traverse Band of Ottawa and Chippewa Indians v. Office of the US Attorney for the Western District of Michigan’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

9 federal appellate · 1 district · 2 state decisions

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

1. “the restoration of lands for an Indian tribe that is restored to Federal recognition.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Koi Nation of N. Cal. v. U.S. Dep't of the Interior · Tomac v. Norton

2. “... the Supreme Court repeatedly has held that “ ‘statutes are to be construed liberally in favor of the Indians, with ambiguous provisions interpreted to their benefit.’ ” This canon is “rooted in the unique trust relationship between the United States and the Indians.” The force of this interpretive canon can be overcome only when “other circumstances evidencing congressional intent” demonstrate that “the statute is ‘fairly capable’ of two interpretations ... [or] that the [conflicting] interpretation is fairly ‘possible.’ ” The State has pointed to no evidence of Congressional intent that would forbid this Court from invoking the canon of statutory construction applied to statutes affecting Indians and their trust relationship with the United States. Indeed, the only evidence of intent strongly suggests that the thrust of the IGRA is to promote Indian gaming, not to limit it. See 25 U.S.C. § 2702 (1) ... Although § 2719 creates a presumptive bar against casino-style gaming on Indian lands acquired after the enactment of the IGRA, that bar should be construed narrowly (and the exceptions to the bar broadly) in order to be consistent with the purpose of the IGRA, which is to encourage gaming.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 576 F. Supp. 2d 838 - Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians v. United States

3. “(1) to provide a statutory basis for the operation of gaming by Indian tribes as a means of promoting tribal economic development, self-sufficiency, and strong tribal governments; [and] (2) to provide a statutory basis for the regulation of gaming by an Indian tribe adequate to shield it from organized crime and other corrupting influences, to ensure that the Indian tribe is the primary beneficiary of the gaming operation, and to assure that gaming is conducted fairly and honestly by both the operator and players[.]”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 201 N.C. App. 480 - McCRACKEN AND AMICK, INC. v. Perdue