Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 646 F. Supp. 2d 72 - PATCHAK v. Salazar

646 F. Supp. 2d 72 - PATCHAK v. Salazar’s Empirical Analysis

2009

Citation profile

7
cited by 7 later decisions
3
cited 3 times by the Supreme Court
July 2019
most recently cited

2 federal appellate ·

Relationships

Applies 25 U.S.C. § 2701 (§ 2 of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act of 1988) · 25 U.S.C. § 2719 (§ 20 of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act of 1988) · 25 U.S.C. § 465 · 42 U.S.C. § 4321 (§ 2 of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969)

Relies on Allen v. Wright · Bennett v. Spear · Marsh v. Oregon Natural Resources Council · Morton v. Mancari · Clarke v. Securities Industry Assn.

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

  1. “(a) IN GENERAL.—The land taken into trust by the United States for the benefit of the Match-E-Be-Nash-She-Wish Band of Pottawatomi Indians and described in the final Notice of Determination of the Department of the Interior ( 70 Fed. Reg. 25596 (May 13, 2005)) is reaffirmed as trust land, and the actions of the Secretary of the Interior in taking that land into trust are ratified and confirmed. (b) NO CLAIMS.—Notwithstanding any other provision of law, an action (including an action pending in a Federal court as of the date of enactment of this Act) relating to the land described in subsection (a) shall not be filed or maintained in a Federal court and shall be promptly dismissed. (c) RETENTION OF FUTURE RIGHTS.—Nothing in this Act alters or diminishes the right of the Match-E-Be-Nash-She-Wish Band of Pottawato-mi Indians from seeking to have any additional land taken into trust by the United States for the benefit of the Band.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
    e.g. Patchak v. Jewell · 424 U.S. App. D.C. 173 - David Patchak v. Sally Jewell
  2. “not an Indian, nor [did] he purport to seek to protect or vindicate the interests of any Indians or Indian tribes.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
    e.g. Sierra Club v. Trump

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.