Catawba Indian Tribe v. South Carolina’s Empirical Analysis
718 F.2d 1291 · 1983
Citation profile
11 federal appellate · 2 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 32 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently October 2009 · most notably South Carolina v. Catawba Indian Tribe, Inc. (1986), Golden Hill Paugussett Tribe of Indians v. Weicker (1994)
11 federal appellate · 2 district ·
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.
Appellate journey
Relationships
Applies 25 U.S.C. § 177 · 25 U.S.C. § 476 · 25 U.S.C. § 891 · 25 U.S.C. § 899 · 25 U.S.C. § 931 · 25 U.S.C. § 935 · 25 U.S.C. § 936 · 25 U.S.C. § 980
Relies on Affiliated Ute Citizens of Utah v. United States · Oneida Indian Nation of New York State v. County of Oneida New York · Mescalero Apache Tribe v. Jones · Samuel Worcester v. The State of Georgia · DeCoteau v. District County Court for the Tenth Judicial District
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 32 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) that it is or represents an Indian tribe within the meaning of the Nonintercourse Act; (2) that the land in issue is covered by the Nonintercourse Act as tribal land; (3) that the United States has never approved or consented to the alienation of the tribal land; (4) that the trust relationship between the United States and the tribe, established by coverage of the Nonintereourse Act, has never been terminated or abandoned.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“The constitution of the tribe adopted pursuant to sections 461, 462, 463, 464, 465, 466 to 470, 471 to 473, 474, 475, 476 to 478, and 479 of this title shall be revoked by the Secretary. Thereafter, the tribe and its members shall not be entitled to any of the special services performed by the United States for Indians because of their status as Indians, all statutes of the United States that affect Indians because of their status as Indians shall be inapplicable to them, and the laws of the several States shall apply to them in the same manner they apply to other persons or citizens within their jurisdiction. Nothing in this subchapter, however, shall affect the status of such persons as citizens of the United States.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent“In every action for the recovery of real property or the possession thereof the person establishing a legal title to the premises shall be presumed to have been possessed thereof within the time required by law. The occupation of such premises by any other person shall be deemed to have been under and in subordination to the legal title unless it appear that such premises have been held and possessed adversely to such legal title for ten years before the commencement of such action.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
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.