Burrell v. Armijo’s Empirical Analysis
456 F.3d 1159 · 2006
Citation profile
13 federal appellate · 3 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 31 later decisions — most recently May 2022 · most notably Crowe & Dunlevy, P.C. v. Stidham (2011), Rhoten v. Dickson (2010)
13 federal appellate · 3 district · 1 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.
Appellate journey
Relationships
Applies 25 U.S.C. § 229 · 28 U.S.C. § 1738 · 42 U.S.C. § 1981 (Civil Rights Act of 1866) · 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act))
Relies on Montana v. United States · Kremer v. Chemical Construction Corp. · Santa Clara Pueblo v. Martinez · Hilton v. Guyot · Montana v. United States
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 31 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“'[w]hen ... it is plain that no federal grant provides for tribal governance of nonmembers' conduct on land covered by [the main rule established in Montana v. United States ],'”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Comity does not require that a tribe utilize judicial procedures identical to those used in the United States Courts. Foreign-law notions are not per se disharmonious with due process by reason of their divergence from the common-law notions of procedure. Indeed, Hilton rejected challenges to a judgment based on lack of adequate cross-examination and unsworn testimony. Federal courts must also be careful to respect tribal jurisprudence along with the special customs and practical limitations of tribal court systems. Extending comity to tribal judgments is not an invitation for the federal courts to exercise unnecessary judicial paternalism in derogation of tribal self-governance.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“(1) the issue previously decided is identical with the one presented in the action in question, (2) the prior action has been finally adjudicated on the merits, (3) the party against whom the doctrine is invoked was a party, or in privity with a party, to the prior adjudication,, and (4) the party against whom the doctrine is raised had a full and fair opportunity to litigate the issue in the prior action.”
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.