HAMMER v. STATE’s Empirical Analysis
2022
Citation profile
3 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 1151 (Indian Crimes Act of 1976) · 18 U.S.C. § 1153 · 25 U.S.C. § 1901 (§ 2 of the Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978) · 25 U.S.C. § 1903 (§ 4 of the Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978) · 25 U.S.C. § 1911 (§ 101 of the Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978) · 25 U.S.C. § 1914 (§ 104 of the Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978) · 25 U.S.C. § 1919 (§ 109 of the Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978)
Relies on Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians v. Holyfield · Pettis v. Johnston · Hamid v. Sew Original · McGirt v. Oklahoma · Schepp v. Hess
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 4 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“At the heart of the ICWA are its provisions concerning jurisdiction over Indian child custody proceedings. Section 1911 lays out a dual jurisdictional scheme. Section 1911(a) establishes exclusive jurisdiction in the tribal courts for proceedings concerning an Indian child 'who resides or is domiciled within the reservation of such tribe,' as well as for wards of tribal courts regardless of domicile. Section 1911(b), on the other hand, creates concurrent but presumptively tribal jurisdiction in the case of children not domiciled on the reservation; on petition of either parent or the tribe, state-court proceedings for foster care placement or termination of parental rights are to be transferred to the tribal court, except in cases of 'good cause,' objection by either parent, or declination of jurisdiction by the tribal court.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“appeal does not concern the correctness of the original order, but the correctness of the district court's response to [the appellant's] motion to vacate.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. BJORKMAN v. NOBLE“unlimited original jurisdiction of all justiciable matters,”
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.