Harjo v. Andrus’s Empirical Analysis
581 F.2d 949 · 1978
Citation profile
20 federal appellate · 8 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 40 later decisions — most recently September 2018 · most notably Seneca-Cayuga Tribe of Oklahoma, an Organized Tribe of Indians, as Recognized Under and by the Laws of the United States v. State of Oklahoma Ex Rel. David L. Thompson, the Duly Elected District Attorney of Ottawa County, Oklahoma, Bob Sills, the Duly Elected Sheriff of Ottawa County, Oklahoma Jon D. Douthitt, Associate District Judge for the 13th Judicial Administrative District of Oklahoma, Quapaw Tribe of Oklahoma, a Federally Recognized Indian Tribe Jesse McKibben Chairman of Quapaw Tribe of Oklahoma v. State of Oklahoma Ex Rel. David L. Thompson, District Attorney of Ottawa County, Morland T. Barton, Assistant District Attorney of Ottawa County Bob Sills, the Duly Elected Sheriff of Ottawa County, Oklahoma Jon D. Douthitt, Judge of the District Court of Ottawa County (1989), Fletcher v. United States (1997)
20 federal appellate · 8 district · 1 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
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 294
Relies on Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education · Hecht Co. v. Bowles · Eccles v. Peoples Bank of Lakewood Village · Sweet v. United States · Mark Trail Camp Grounds, Inc. v. Field Enterprises, Inc.
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 40 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Appellants’ argument ... overlooks the very essence of the district court’s opinion — that the Creek people are entitled to democratic self-government. The court neither directly nor indirectly abolished the essential tripartite government embodied in the 1867 Constitution, but rather left it to the Creek people either to revivify that system along traditional, tribal town lines, or to choose a different means of representation. Thus, the court designed its relief to take into account the needs and desires of all those who would be most affected by its decision — the entire Creek nation.. .. Keeping in mind the broad discretion of the district court in framing equitable relief, and reviewing the record’s account of the prolonged denial to the Creek people of the opportunity to express their views on the form and functioning of their government, we find no abuse of discretion in the district court’s order in this case.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Morris v. Watt“the district court (in Harjo ) undertook an extended, studious, and excellent analysis of the effect of federal treaties and statutes on the government of the Creek Nation.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Morris v. Watt“A district court's equitable discretion is characterized by flexibility, the need for practicality, and the duty to reconcile the public interest with private needs.”
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.