Moses v. Kinnear’s Empirical Analysis
490 F.2d 21 · 1973
Citation profile
36 federal appellate · 3 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 48 later decisions — most recently January 2000 · most notably United States v. Washington (1978), Gila River Indian Community v. Henningson, Durham & Richardson (1980)
36 federal appellate · 3 district ·
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 28 U.S.C. § 1291 · 28 U.S.C. § 1292 · 28 U.S.C. § 1331 · 28 U.S.C. § 1341 · 28 U.S.C. § 1362 · 28 U.S.C. § 2281
Relies on Railroad Commission v. Pullman Co. · McClanahan v. State Tax Commission of Arizona · Mescalero Apache Tribe v. Jones · Idlewild Bon Voyage Liquor Corp. v. Epstein · Swift & Co. v. Wickham
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 48 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“arises under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“... the instrumentality doctrine has also been held applicable where the Government sues on behalf of a private party in order to protect and enforce its policies with respect to those in whom the United States has a special interest, though perhaps not a proprietary one.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“But tribal activities conducted outside the reservation present different considerations. “State authority over Indians is yet more extensive over activities . not on any reservation.” Organized Village of Kake, supra, [369 U.S.] at 75, [82 S.Ct. at 571.] Absent express federal law to the contrary, Indians going beyond reservation boundaries have generally been held subject to nondiscriminatory state law otherwise applicable to all citizens of the State. See, e. g., Puyallup Tribe v. Department of Game, 391 U.S. 392, 398 , [ 88 S.Ct. 1725, 1728 , 20 L.Ed.2d 689 ] (1968); Organized Village of Kake, supra, [369 U.S.] at 75-76, [ 82 S.Ct. 562, 570-1 ]; Tulee v. Washington, 315 U.S. 681, 683 , [ 62 S.Ct. 862, 863 , 86 L.Ed. 1115 ] (1942); Shaw v. Gibson-Zahniser Oil Corp., 276 U.S. 575 , [ 48 S.Ct. 333 , 72 L.Ed. 709 ] (1928); Ward v. Race Horse, 163 U.S. 504 , [ 16 S.Ct. 1076 , 41 L.Ed. 244 ] (1896). That principle is as relevant to a State’s tax laws as it is to state criminal laws, see Ward v. Race Horse, supra, at 516, [ 16 S.Ct. 1076 , 1080] and applies as much to tribal ski resorts as it does to fishing enterprises. See Organized Village of Kake, supra.”
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.