Harrison v. Laveen’s Empirical Analysis
1948
Citation profile
6 federal appellate · 8 district · 44 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 65 later decisions (4 by the Supreme Court) — most recently May 2018 · most notably Williams v. Lee (1959), McClanahan v. State Tax Commission of Arizona (1973)
6 federal appellate · 8 district · 44 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
Relies on The Cherokee Nation v. The State of Georgia · United States v. Waller · Porter v. Hall · Begay v. Sawtelle · Fernandez v. State
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 65 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““ * * * Indian reservations in Arizona are within political and governmental boundaries of the state, and limitations on state’s jurisdiction in Enabling Act apply only to Indian lands considered as property, but do not withdraw territorial area from sovereignty of state and control of its laws.” [ 67 Ariz. 337 , 196 P.2d 458 .] (Emphasis supplied.)”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage““In a democracy suffrage is the most basic civil right, since its exercise is the chief means whereby other rights may be safeguarded. To deny the right to vote, where one is legally entitled to do so, is to do violence to the principles of freedom and equality.” 67 Ariz. at 342 , 196 P.2d at 459 . * * * * * * Our view coincides with the late Chief Justice Ross that the matter of determining what is ‘good public policy’ is for the executive and legislative departments and that the courts must base their decisions on the law as it appears in the constitution and statutes. We concede that very persuasive arguments may be advanced upon both sides of the ‘public policy’ question, but we refuse to be drawn into the controversy as to the wisdom of granting suffrage to the Indians, our sole concern being whether the constitution, fairly interpreted, denies them the franchise.” 67 Ariz. at 344 , 196 P.2d at 460 .”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.