Big Eagle v. Andera’s Empirical Analysis
508 F.2d 1293 · 1975
Citation profile
7 federal appellate · 1 district · 5 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 14 later decisions — most recently December 1996
7 federal appellate · 1 district · 5 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
Relies on Broadrick v. Oklahoma · Dombrowski v. Pfister · Chaplinsky v. State of New Hampshire · Parker v. Levy · Papachristou v. City of Jacksonville
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 14 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“`A defendant cannot claim that a statute is unconstitutional in some of its reaches if it is constitutional as applied to him.'”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“We agree with the argument of Regina and Willard that, if tested by standards ápplied to .communities outside an Indian' reservation, the Tribe’s disorderly conduct statute appears facially vague and overbroad, [citations omitted] But we are not prepared to say that a limiting construction of the Statute, well-known to the Indian reservation society, would not, if made by the Tribal Court, cure its facial vagueness and overbreadth. . Lest we be misunderstood, we do not say that this statute can necessarily be saved by a restricted interpretation. Rather, we decline to rule on its validity without evidence of its enforcement and construction. Big Eagle v. Andera, 508 F.2d 1293 (8th Cir. 1975) at 1296-97.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Big Eagle v. Andera“Any Indian who shall engage in fighting in a public place, disturb or annoy any public or religious assembly, or appear in a public or private place in an intoxicated and disorderly condition, or who shall engage in any other act of public indecency or immorality, shall be deemed guilty of-disorderly conduct, and upon conviction thereof, shall be sentenced to labor for a period not to exceed thirty (30) days, or to a fine not to exceed $60.00, or to both such imprisonment and fine with costs. § 19, Crow Creek Sioux Tribe Penal Code.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Big Eagle v. Andera
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.