607 F. Supp. 1027 - Chapoose v. Clark’s Empirical Analysis
1985
Citation profile
7 federal appellate · 3 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 11 later decisions — most recently April 2007
7 federal appellate · 3 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 25 U.S.C. § 677 · 25 U.S.C. § 677A · 25 U.S.C. § 677D · 25 U.S.C. § 677G · 28 U.S.C. § 677 · 5 U.S.C. § 706
Relies on Chevron U. S. A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. · Santa Clara Pueblo v. Martinez · County of Oneida New York v. Oneida Indian Nation of New York State New York · Menominee Tribe of Indians v. United States · Shapiro v. Thompson
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 11 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“New membership in the tribe shall thereafter be controlled and determined by the constitution and bylaws of the tribe and ordinances enacted thereunder.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“After the division of full-bloods and mixed-bloods was complete, Congress intended that the Ute Tribe, now consisting of full-bloods only, be able to set its own membership requirements, just as it had done since 1937. The tribe was to set these membership requirements in its constitution, bylaws, and ordinances, just as it had done since 1937. 25 U.S.C. § 677d. Nowhere is there any indication that Congress intended to take away the Tribe’s right to determine its own membership. Indeed, every indication, and there are many express indications, was that the Ute Tribe would continue to set its own membership requirements. The only change was that the mixed-bloods were no longer tribal members for the purposes of sharing in trust fund distributions .... No person who received a share of tribal assets as a mixed-blood can now gain membership in the tribe under § 1(b) of article II of the tribal constitution. Nor can the children of a terminated mixed-blood claim membership in the tribe through their mixed-blood parent. The only way a child can gain membership in the tribe is by claiming membership through a parent who was a tribal member residing on the reservation when the child was born. Allowing a child in that category to have a right to tribal membership is fully consistent with the tribal members' desires to give their children a birthright. Moreover, it is entirely consistent with the .intent of Congress to terminate the mixed-bloods and to continue the tribe of full-blood”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““[t]he mixed-bloods were to be given their share of tribal assets and then be assimilated into society. With some minor exceptions, they would no longer be treated as an Indian tribe. The full-bloods, on the other hand, were not to be terminated as a tribe. The Ute Tribe would continue as a tribe, with only the full-bloods as members and not the mixed-bloods.””
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.