Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 480 U.S. 202 - California v. Cabazon Band of Mission Indians

California v. Cabazon Band of Mission Indians’s Empirical Analysis

1987

Citation profile

1,220
cited by 1,220 later decisions
26
cited 26 times by the Supreme Court
19
states following
February 2025
most recently cited

357 federal appellate · 159 district · 340 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 1,220 later decisions (26 by the Supreme Court) — most recently February 2025 · most notably Seminole Tribe of Florida v. Florida (1996), Oklahoma Tax Commission v. Citizen Band Potawatomi Indian Tribe of Oklahoma (1991)

357 federal appellate · 159 district · 340 state decisions — followed in 19 states

501019871990200020102020decided

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

reviewedCabazon Band of Mission Indians v. County of Riverside (from Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals)

Relationships

Relies on Northern Pipeline Construction Co. v. Marathon Pipe Line Co. · United States v. Mazurie · McClanahan v. State Tax Commission of Arizona · Ohio State Board of Education v. Reed · White Mountain Apache Tribe v. Bracker

Cited together with Washington v. Confederated Tribes of the Colville Indian Reservation · McClanahan v. State Tax Commission of Arizona · New Mexico v. Mescalero Apache Tribe · Bryan v. Itasca County · White Mountain Apache Tribe v. Bracker

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 1,220 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “plainly was not intended to effect total assimilation of Indian tribes into mainstream American society.”
    83 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “Each of the States or Territories listed in the following table shall have jurisdiction over offenses committed by or against Indians in the areas of Indian country listed opposite the name of the State or Territory to the same extent that such State or Territory has jurisdiction over offenses committed elsewhere within the State or Territory, and the criminal laws of such State or Territory shall have the same force and effect within such Indian country as they have elsewhere within the State or Territory: State or Territory of Wisconsin Indian country affected All Indian country within the State”
    8 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
  3. “Here the Tribes are not merely importing a product onto the reservations for immediate resale to non-Indians. They have built modern facilities which provide recreational opportunities and ancillary services to their patrons, who do not simply drive onto the reservations, make purchases and depart, but spend extended periods of time there enjoying the services the Tribes provide. The Tribes have a strong incentive to provide comfortable, clean, and attractive facilities and well-run games in order to increase attendance at the games_ [T]he Ca-bazon and Morongo Bands are generating value on the reservations through activities in which they have a substantial interest.”
    7 later decisions 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.