Valenzuela v. Silversmith’s Empirical Analysis
699 F.3d 1199 · 2012
Citation profile
4 federal appellate · 2 district · 2 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 25 U.S.C. § 1302 (§ 202 of the Indian Civil Rights Act of 1968) · 25 U.S.C. § 1303 (§ 203 of the Indian Civil Rights Act of 1968) · 28 U.S.C. § 1291 · 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Environment · Santa Clara Pueblo v. Martinez · Gonzalez v. Crosby · Sinochem International Co. v. Malaysia International Shipping Corp. · Rhines v. Weber
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 11 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) an assertion of tribal jurisdiction is motivated by a desire to harass or is conducted in bad faith, (2) the action is patently violative of express jurisdiction prohibitions, or (3) exhaustion would be futile because of the lack of an adequate opportunity to challenge the court's jurisdiction.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Coriz v. Rodriguez“[flederal courts may choose to avoid difficult subject matter jurisdiction questions and dispose of a case on a 'threshold, non-merits issue,’ ... so long as resolving the issue ‘does not entail any assumption by the court of substantive law-declaring power.’”
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.