United States v. Logan’s Empirical Analysis
641 F.2d 860 · 1981
Citation profile
21 federal appellate · 1 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 26 later decisions — most recently July 2015 · most notably Slakan v. Porter (1984), Housing Authority of the Kaw Tribe of Indians v. City of Ponca City (1991)
21 federal appellate · 1 district · 2 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. § 1163
Relies on United States v. Guerrero · Tapia v. Rodriguez · United States v. Miller · United States v. Stevens
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 26 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The principal objective of the proposed bill is to protect Indian tribal organizations, especially those created pursuant to the Indian Reorganization Act of June 18, 1934 ( 48 Stat. 984 ), from the actions of dishonest or corrupt tribal officials. It provides for the punishment of persons holding positions of trust in tribal organizations who abuse their responsibilities by diverting tribal funds to their own pockets or those of their friends.... During the years since the first group was organized under the Indian Reorganization Act, situations have been encountered from time to time that involved the misuse or misappropriation of tribal funds, the lack of adequate accounting records, or other improper actions by tribal officials. Occasionally, the same official has been guilty of repeated breaches of trust. Yet in most instances the creation of fiduciary positions has not been paralleled by corresponding safeguards in the law and order codes under which the tribes operate. Even in those instances where criminal sanctions are provided in the tribal codes, the tribal members have been extremely reluctant to bring actions in the tribal courts against apparently faithless tribal officials. The only practical recourse available to tribal members, therefore, has been to vote the malefactors out of office in the tribal elections.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““any tribe, band, or community of Indians which is subject to the laws of the . United States relating to Indian affairs or any corporation, association, or group which is organized under any of such laws.” (Emphasis added.)”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“mutually exclusive; a corporation may be organized under both.”
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.