Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 681 F.2d 75 - United States v. Levesque

United States v. Levesque’s Empirical Analysis

681 F.2d 75 · 1982

Citation profile

53
cited by 53 later decisions
5
states following
June 2017
most recently cited

35 federal appellate · 4 district · 8 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 53 later decisions — most recently June 2017 · most notably United States v. Love (1998), United States v. Houlihan (1996)

35 federal appellate · 4 district · 8 state decisions

3301982199020002010decided

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. § 1151 (Indian Crimes Act of 1976) · 18 U.S.C. § 1153

Relies on United States v. Jorn · Atlantic Richfield Co. v. Newman Oil Co. · United States v. Felipe Sandoval · United States v. Covington · United States v. John

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

  1. “both 'Indian' in character and federally dependent.”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “(1) [W]hether the United States had retained title to the lands which it permits the Indians to occupy and authority to enact regulations and protective laws respecting this territory, (2) the nature of the area in questions, the relationship of the inhabitants of the area to Indian tribes and to the federal government and the established practice of government agencies toward the area, (3) whether there is an element of cohesiveness manifested either by economic pursuits in the area, common interests, or needs of the inhabitants as supplied by that locality, and (4) whether such lands have been set apart for the use, occupancy and protection of dependent Indian peoples.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “[T]he “determination of whether lands are considered ‘Indian Country’ does not turn on the label used in designating them ... nor on the manner in which the lands in question were acquired ... Rather the test is whether such lands have been set apart for the use, occupancy and protection of dependent Indian peoples.””
    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.