Michigan v. Bay Mills Indian Community’s Empirical Analysis
572 U.S. 782 · 2014
Citation profile
8 federal appellate · 2 district · 25 state decisions
Appellate journey
reviewedthe decision below (from Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals)
Relationships
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 1166 (§ 23 of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act of 1988) · 25 U.S.C. § 1301 (§ 201 of the Indian Civil Rights Act of 1968) · 25 U.S.C. § 2701 (§ 2 of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act of 1988) · 25 U.S.C. § 2702 (§ 3 of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act of 1988) · 25 U.S.C. § 2710 (§ 11 of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act of 1988) · 25 U.S.C. § 450N (§ 111 of the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act of 1975) · 25 U.S.C. § 81 · 28 U.S.C. § 1331
Relies on Ex Parte: Edward T Young · Pearson v. Callahan · Seminole Tribe of Florida v. Florida · Patterson v. McLean Credit Union · Payne v. Tennessee
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 111 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Indian tribes are domestic dependent nations that exercise inherent sovereign authority.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“remain 'separate sovereigns pre-existing the Constitution.'”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“are subject to plenary control by Congress.”
4 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.