Carcieri v. Kempthorne’s Empirical Analysis
497 F.3d 15 · 2007
Citation profile
8 federal appellate · 10 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 25 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently March 2023 · most notably Carcieri v. Salazar (2009), Michigan Gambling Opposition v. Kempthorne (2008)
8 federal appellate · 10 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.
Relationships
Applies 16 U.S.C. § 1451 (Coastal and Estuarine Land Conservation Program Act) · 16 U.S.C. § 1456 · 18 U.S.C. § 1151 (Indian Crimes Act of 1976) · 25 U.S.C. § 1705 · 25 U.S.C. § 1707 · 25 U.S.C. § 1708 · 25 U.S.C. § 1724 (Houlton Band of Maliseet Indians Supplementary Claims Settlement Act of 1986) · 25 U.S.C. § 1741 (Florida Indian Land Claims Settlement Act of 1982)
Relies on Chevron U. S. A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. · Citizens to Preserve Overton Park, Inc. v. Volpe · Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Association of United States Inc v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company Consumer Alert · Mistretta v. United States · Yakus 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 25 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[A]n intelligible principle exists in the statutory phrase ‘for the purpose of providing land for Indians’ when it is viewed in the statutory and historical context of the IRA. The statutory aims of providing lands sufficient to enable Indians to achieve self-support and ameliorating the damage resulting from the prior allotment policy sufficiently narrow the discretionary authority granted to the Department.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““The term ‘Indian’ as used in this Act shall include all persons of Indian descent who are members of any recognized Indian tribe now under Federal jurisdiction, and all persons who are descendants of such members who were, on June 1, 1934, residing within the present boundaries of any Indian reservation, and shall further include all other persons of one-half or more Indian blood. . . . The term ‘tribe’ wherever used in this Act shall be construed to refer to any Indian tribe, organized band, pueblo, or the Indians residing on one reservation. ...” § 479 (emphasis added).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Carcieri v. Salazar“to reestablish sovereign authority over territory....”
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.