415 F. Supp. 807 - Youngbear v. Brewer’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

20 federal appellate · 2 district · 5 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 33 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[T]he “determination of whether lands are considered ‘Indian Country’ does not turn on the label used in designating them ... nor on the manner in which the lands in question were acquired ... Rather the test is whether such lands have been set apart for the use, occupancy and protection of dependent Indian peoples.””

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Narragansett Indian Tribe of Rhode Island v. Narragansett Electric Co. · 485 F. Supp. 2d 1032 - United States v. Papakee

2. ““Be it enacted, etc., That concurrent jurisdiction is hereby relinquished to the State of Kansas to prosecute Indians and others for offenses by or against Indians or others, committed on Indian reservations in Kansas, including trust or restricted allotments, to the same extent as its courts have jurisdiction for offenses committed elsewhere within the State in accordance with the laws of the State; and section 328 of the act of March 4,1909 ( 35 Stat. 1151 ), as amended by the act of June 28, 1932 ( 47 Stat. 337 ), and sections 2145 and 2146 of the United States Revised Statutes (U.S.C., title 18, sec. 548 [Federal Major Crimes Act], title 25, secs. 217, 218) are modified accordingly insofar as they apply to Indian reservations or Indian country in the said State of Kansas.” 86 Cong. Rec. 5596, 76th Cong. 3rd Sess. (May 6, 1940). (Emphasis added.)”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Mitchell · Iowa Tribe of Indians of Kansas and Nebraska, a Federally Recognized Indian Tribe v. State of Kansas

3. ““I am enclosing a draft of a bill to confer jurisdiction on the State of North Dakota over offenses committed by or against Indians on the Devils Lake Indian Reservation in that State, and I ask that this proposed bill be placed before the Senate for favorable consideration. "The Indians of the Devils Lake Reservation received allotments of land in severalty pursuant to the General Allotment Act of February 8, 1887 ( 24 Stat. 388 ). A majority of the allotments were approved November 2, 1892, for which the usual 25-year trust patents were issued on June 11, 1893, in most cases. Section 6 of that act provides, in part: '"That upon the completion of said allotments and the patenting of the lands to said allottees, each and every member of the respective bands or tribes of Indians to whom allotments have been made shall have the benefit of and be subject to the laws, both civil and criminal, of the State or Territory in which they may reside; * * "Evidently in pursuance of the above provision of law, the courts of the State of North Dakota have for many years assumed jurisdiction over offenses committed by Indians on the Devils Lake Indian Reservation. That legislative provision has never been repealed, but it was amended by the act of May 8, 1906 ( 34 Stat. 182 ), so as to read: " ‘That at the expiration of the trust period and when the lands have been conveyed to the Indians by patent in fee, as provided in section 5 of this act, then each and every allottee shall have the ben”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Hook