MCCLAIN v. STATE’s Empirical Analysis
2021
Citation profile
1 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 1152 · 18 U.S.C. § 7
Relies on United States v. Morton · Negonsott v. Samuels · Carlsbad Technology, Inc. v. HIF Bio, Inc. · South Dakota v. Yankton Sioux Tribe · United States v. McBratney
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 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“When we speak of jurisdiction, we mean sovereign authority, not subject matter jurisdiction. Cf. [United States v.] Prentiss , 256 F.3d [971,] 982 (disclaiming the application of subject matter jurisdiction analysis to cases involving an inquiry under the ICCA). This is consistent with use of the term in United States v. McCraney , 104 U.S. 621 , 623--4, 26 L.Ed. 869 (1881).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“Congress possesses plenary power over Indian affairs, including the power to modify or eliminate tribal rights.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
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.