Negonsott v. Samuels’s Empirical Analysis
1993
Citation profile
191 federal appellate · 77 district · 62 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 563 later decisions (8 by the Supreme Court) — most recently December 2024 · most notably Kaul v. Stephan (1996), Hagen Utah (1994)
191 federal appellate · 77 district · 62 state decisions — followed in 16 states
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
reviewedNegonsott v. Samuels (from Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals)
Relationships
Relies on Griffin v. Oceanic Contractors, Inc. · United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co. · Doerr v. Doerr · United States v. Kagama · Moskal 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 563 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[A court's] task is to give effect to the will of Congress [when] its will has been expressed in reasonably plain terms.”
20 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Walters v. Nadell · In Re Mf“(a) Any Indian who commits against ... [any] other person ... murder, ... [or] robbery[ ] ... within ... Indian country, shall be subject to the same law and penalties as all other persons committing any of the above offenses, within the exclusive jurisdiction of the United States .”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Jurisdiction is hereby conferred on the State of Iowa over offenses committed by or against Indians on the Sac and Fox Indian Reservation in that State to the same extent as its courts have jurisdiction generally over offenses committed within said State outside of any Indian reservation: Provided, however, That nothing herein contained shall deprive the courts of the United States of jurisdiction over offenses defined by the laws of the United States committed by or against Indians on Indian reservations.”
2 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.