White v. Califano’s Empirical Analysis
1977
Citation profile
12 federal appellate · 7 district · 4 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 27 later decisions — most recently July 2011 · most notably Blue Legs v. United States Bureau of Indian Affairs (1989), United States v. Teller (1985)
12 federal appellate · 7 district · 4 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. § 13 · 25 U.S.C. § 1326 · 25 U.S.C. § 1601 (Alaska Native and American Indian Direct Reimbursement Act of 2000) · 25 U.S.C. § 1602 · 25 U.S.C. § 1621 · 25 U.S.C. § 452 · 28 U.S.C. § 2201 · 42 U.S.C. § 2001
Relies on Morton v. Ruiz · Golden v. Zwickler · Williams v. Lee · McClanahan v. State Tax Commission of Arizona · Moe v. Confederated Salish & Kootenai Tribes of the Flathead Reservation
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.
“special responsibilities and legal obligation to the American Indian people,”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“§ 6. Notwithstanding the provisions of any Enabling Act for the admission of a State, the consent of the United States is hereby given to the people of any State to amend, where necessary, their State constitution or existing statutes, as the case may be, to remove any legal impediment to the assumption of civil and criminal jurisdiction in accordance with the provisions of this Act: Provided, That the provisions of this Act shall not become effective with respect to such assumption of jurisdiction by any such State until the people thereof have appropriately amended their State constitution or statutes as the case may be. § 7. The consent of the United States is hereby given to any other State not having jurisdiction with respect to criminal offenses or civil causes of action, or with respect to both as provided for in this Act, to assume jurisdiction at such time and in such manner as the people of the State shall, by affirmative legislation, obligate and bind the State to assumption thereof.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“The Congress finds that— (a) Federal health services to maintain and improve the health of the Indians are consonant with and required by the Federal Government’s historical and unique legal relationship with, and resulting responsibility to, the American Indian people. (Emphasis ours.) (b) A major national goal of the United States is to provide the quantity and quality of health services which will permit the health status of Indians to be raised to the highest possible level and to encourage the maximum participation of Indians in the planning and management of those services. 25 U.S.C. § 1601 .”
1 later decision 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.