Greene v. Babbitt’s Empirical Analysis
64 F.3d 1266 · 1995
Citation profile
21 federal appellate · 3 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 40 later decisions — most recently October 2023 · most notably Northwest Forest Resource Council v. Glickman (1996), Samish Indian Nation v. United States (2005)
21 federal appellate · 3 district ·
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. § 450 (§ 2 of the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act of 1975) · 5 U.S.C. § 552 (Freedom of Information Act) · 5 U.S.C. § 554 (Administrative Procedure Act of 1946)
Relies on Board of Regents of State Colleges v. Roth · Mathews v. Eldridge · Goldberg v. Kelly · Goss v. Lopez · Logan v. Zimmerman Brush Co.
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.
“Our decision in Greene v. United States, 996 F.2d 973 (9th Cir.1993), can leave no serious doubt that our court regards the issues of tribal treaty status and federal acknowledgment as fundamentally different. We there held that the Tulalip Tribe was not entitled to intervene in this very litigation. We did so because the Tulalip's interest in preventing the Samish from gaining treaty fishing rights was not affected by this litigation, involving federal tribal recognition or, as it is termed in the applicable regulation, "acknowledgment."”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““Rights under the treaties vested with the tribes at the time of the signing of the treaties. Nonrecognition of the tribe by the federal government and the failure of the Secretary of the Interior to approve a tribe’s enrollment may result in loss of statutory benefits, but can have no impact on vested treaty rights. Whether a group of citizens of Indian ancestry is descended from a treaty signatory and has maintained an organized tribal structure is a factual question which a district court is competent to determine. 520 F.2d at 692-93 .””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“because we disagreed with their position that Samish success in the [recognition case] would undermine the finality of the Washington II decision.”
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.