FGS Constructors, Inc. v. Carlow’s Empirical Analysis
64 F.3d 1230 · 1995
Citation profile
13 federal appellate · 7 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 38 later decisions — most recently November 2018 · most notably Dawavendewa v. Salt River Project Agricultural Improvement & Power District (1998), Bruce Lien Company v. Three Affiliated Tribes (1996)
13 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 25 U.S.C. § 450B (§ 4 of the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act of 1975) · 25 U.S.C. § 450F (§ 102 of the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act of 1975) · 40 U.S.C. § 3131 · 40 U.S.C. § 3133
Relies on Celotex Corporation v. Catrett H · F. D. Rich Co. v. United States Ex Rel. Industrial Lumber Co. · Maurice Sporting Goods, Inc. v. Maxway Corp. · In re Fireman's Fund Insurance
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 38 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The ISDEAA promotes the long-standing federal policy of encouraging Indian self-determination, giving Indian tribes control over the administration of federal programs benefiting Indians. Under a self-determination contract, the federal government supplies funding to a tribal organization, allowing the tribal organization to plan, conduct and administer a program or service that the federal government otherwise would have provided directly. 25 U.S.C. § 450f, b(j).”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“between a tribal organization and the appropriate Secretary,”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“With respect to claims resulting from the performance of functions ... under a contract ... authorized by the [ISDEAA] ..., an Indian tribe, tribal or ganization or Indian contractor is deemed hereafter to be part of the Bureau of Indian Affairs in the Department of the Interior ... while carrying out any such contract ... and its employees are deemed employees of the [BIA] ... while acting within the scope of their employment in carrying out the contract. ... [A]fter September 30, 1990, any civil action or proceeding involving such claims brought hereafter against any tribe, tribal organization, Indian contractor or tribal employee covered by this provision shall be deemed to be an action against the United States and will be defended by the Attorney General and be afforded the full protection and coverage of the Federal Tort Claims Act....”
2 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.