Vann v. Kempthorne’s Empirical Analysis
534 F.3d 741 · 2008
Citation profile
6 federal appellate · 10 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 33 later decisions — most recently May 2025 · most notably United States v. Frazier (2005), Crowe & Dunlevy, P.C. v. Stidham (2011)
6 federal appellate · 10 district ·
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
reviewedthe decision below (from District of Columbia District Court)
Relationships
Applies 25 U.S.C. § 1302 (§ 202 of the Indian Civil Rights Act of 1968) · 25 U.S.C. § 1303 (§ 203 of the Indian Civil Rights Act of 1968) · 25 U.S.C. § 2710 (§ 11 of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act of 1988) · 28 U.S.C. § 1291 · 5 U.S.C. § 706
Relies on Cohen v. Beneficial Industrial Loan Corp. · Ex Parte: Edward T Young · Edelman v. Jordan · Pennhurst State School and Hospital v. Halderman · Seminole Tribe of Florida v. Florida
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 33 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Nothing in § 1 of the 13th Amendment so much as hints at a federal court suit by a private party to enforce the prohibition against badges and incidents of slavery against Indian tribes ... The 1866 Treaty similarly lacks any clear abrogation of tribal sovereign immunity, as the 10th Circuit correctly concluded in Nero [v. Cherokee Nation of Okla homa], 892 F.2d [1457] at 1461 [(10th Cir.1989) ].”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“be joined in the Freedmen’s federal court suit without the tribe’s consent.” Id. at 749. 6 . The Court also rejects the Freedmen's assertion that if the suit must be dismissed absent the Cherokee Nation, then Ex parte Young suits against tribal officers would never be available. As courts consistently recognize, the Rule 19(b) analysis is highly case specific and”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“[a] federal court is not barred by the Eleventh Amendment from enjoining state officers from acting unconstitutionally, either because their action is alleged to violate the Constitution directly or because it is contrary to a federal statute or regulation that is the supreme law of the land.”
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.