Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 708 F.2d 335 - Goodface

Goodface’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

23
cited by 23 later decisions
2
states following
January 2022
most recently cited

11 district · 2 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 23 later decisions — most recently January 2022

11 district · 2 state decisions

9019801990200020102020decided

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 Califano v. Sanders · Santa Clara Pueblo v. Martinez · Fitzpatrick v. Bitzer · Gens v. United States · Means v. Wilson

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

  1. “We hold that the district court did have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 to review, pursuant to the APA [Administrative Procedure Act], the action taken by the BIA in refusing to recognize either tribal council. Although the APA may not be used as an independent grant of subject matter jurisdiction to review agency actions, ... 28 U.S.C. § 1331 confers general jurisdiction on federal courts to review federal agency actions “subject only to preclusion-of-review statutes.” We know of no statute precluding judicial review of BIA actions, and therefore we determine that the district court could review the agency action under the arbitrary or capricious standard enunciated in 5 U.S.C. § 706 (2)(A).”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “If the only parties to this action were the 1980 and 1982 councils and the only question presented was one of interpreting the tribal Constitution and bylaws, we doubt whether a federal court would have jurisdiction. It is essential that the parties seek a tribal remedy, for as previously noted, substantial doubt exists that federal courts can intervene under any circum stances to determine the rights of the contestants in a tribal election dispute.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “The BIA, in its responsibility for carrying on government relations with the Tribe, is obligated to recognize and deal with some tribal governing body in the interim before resolution of the election dispute.”
    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.