Sekaquaptewa v. MacDonald’s Empirical Analysis
619 F.2d 801 · 1980
Citation profile
9 federal appellate · 7 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 22 later decisions — most recently January 2011
9 federal appellate · 7 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 18 U.S.C. § 1151 (Indian Crimes Act of 1976) · 25 U.S.C. § 631 · 25 U.S.C. § 640D · 25 U.S.C. § 640D · 28 U.S.C. § 1292
Relies on Baker v. Carr · Tcherepnin v. Knight · Soriano v. United States · Ohio v. Gallagher · DeCoteau v. District County Court for the Tenth Judicial District
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 22 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[Ljegislative intent is clear enough to enable us to identify Hopi interests by areas settled. Navajo interests are identifiable as the residue. Congress recognized Hopi concern over the 1882 reservation and their villages, shrines, and grazing areas outside the 1882 reservation. The “such other Indians” provision was explained to the Hopis as protecting their rights to areas occupied outside the 1882 reservation. ... We therefore reverse the [district court’s] judgment insofar as it limits Hopi interests to an undivided one-half interest in lands they exclusively possessed, occupied, or used in 1934. Judgment should be entered declaring Hopi interests in those lands to be exclusive.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“in 1934. In doing so, we acknowledge the possibility that some reservation land, grazing land for instance, may have been used by both tribes in 1934. Even in villages it may not be possible for the court to conclude that the Hopis”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“provision was explained to the Hopis as protecting their rights to areas occupied outside the 1882 reservation.... We therefore reverse the [district court's] judgment insofar as it limits Hopi interests to an undivided one-half interest in lands they exclusively possessed, occupied, or used in 1934. Judgment should be entered declaring Hopi interests in those lands to be exclusive. 11 Id. at 808. We then remanded the case with these instructions: 12 We remand to the district court to determine what land the Hopis”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Indian Tribe v. Zah
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.