Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 623 F.2d 682 - Dry Creek Lodge, Inc. v. Arapahoe & Shoshone Tribes

Dry Creek Lodge, Inc. v. Arapahoe & Shoshone Tribes’s Empirical Analysis

623 F.2d 682 · 1980

Citation profile

96
cited by 96 later decisions
3
states following
February 2019
most recently cited

37 federal appellate · 17 district · 4 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 96 later decisions — most recently February 2019 · most notably Ramey Construction Company Inc v. Apache Tribe of Mescalero Reservation (1982), Jicarilla Apache Tribe v. Andrus (1982)

37 federal appellate · 17 district · 4 state decisions

3301980199020002010decided

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

Relies on Santa Clara Pueblo v. Martinez · Oliphant v. Suquamish Indian Tribe · Dry Creek Lodge, Inc. v. United States · 459 F. Supp. 366 - Wilson v. TURTLE MT. BAND OF CHIPPEWA INDIANS

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 96 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “the issue relates to a matter outside of internal tribal affairs and when it concerns an issue with a non-Indian.”
    9 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “strictly an internal one between tribal members and the tribal government”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “Congress retains authority expressly to authorize civil actions for injunctive or other relief to redress violations of § 1302, in the event that the tribes themselves prove deficient in applying and enforcing its substantive provisions. But unless and until Congress makes clear its intention to permit the additional intrusion on tribal sovereignty that adjudication of such actions in a federal forum would represent, we are constrained to find that § 1302 does not implicitly authorize actions for declaratory or injunctive relief against either the tribe or its officers.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent

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.