Rj Williams Company v. Fort Belknap Housing Authority’s Empirical Analysis
719 F.2d 979 · 1983
Citation profile
42 federal appellate · 8 district · 11 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 80 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently January 2022 · most notably Iowa Mutual Insurance v. LaPlante (1987), Stock West, Inc. v. Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation (1989)
42 federal appellate · 8 district · 11 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
Applies 25 U.S.C. § 1302 (§ 202 of the Indian Civil Rights Act of 1968) · 25 U.S.C. § 1322 · 28 U.S.C. § 1331 · 28 U.S.C. § 1332 (Class Action Fairness Act of 2005) · 28 U.S.C. § 1343 · 28 U.S.C. § 1360 · 42 U.S.C. § 1437 (HOPE VI Program Reauthorization and Small Community Mainstreet Rejuvenation and Housing Act of 2003) · 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act))
Relies on Monroe v. Pape · Bell v. Hood · Lugar v. Edmondson Oil Co. · Santa Clara Pueblo v. Martinez · Patterson v. United States
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 80 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"A tribe's interest in self-government could be implicated in one of two ways. First, if a state or federal court resolves a dispute which was within the province of the tribal courts or of other nonjudicial law-applying tribal institutions, that court would impinge upon the tribe's right to adjudicate controversies arising within it. Fisher v. District Court, 424 U.S. 382, 387-88 , 96 S.Ct. 943, 946-47 , 47 L.Ed.2d 106 (1976) (per curiam); see Santa Clara Pueblo v. Martinez, 436 U.S. 49, 65-66 , 98 S.Ct. 1670, 1680-1681 , 56 L.Ed.2d 106 (1978). Second, if the dispute itself calls into question the validity or propriety of an act fairly attributable to the tribe as a governmental body, tribal self-government is drawn directly into the controversy. Littell [ v. Nakai, 344 F.2d 486, 490 (9th Cir.1965)]."”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“(1) The rights and duties of the parties with respect to an issue in contract are determined by the local law of the state which, with respect to that issue, has the most significant relationship to the transaction and the parties under the principles stated in § 6. (2) In the absence of an effective choice of law by the parties (see § 187), the context to be taken into account in applying the principles of § 6 to determine the law applicable to an issue include: (a) the place of contracting, (b) the place of negotiation of the contract, (c) the place of performance, (d) the location of the subject matter of the contract, and (e) the domicil, residence, nationality, place of incorporation and place of business of the parties.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““. .. no action under 42 U.S.C.1983 can be maintained in federal court for persons alleging deprivation of constitutional lights under color of tribal law. In-dian tribes are separate and distinct sovereignties, (citations omitted) and are not constrained by the fourteenth amendment.” R.J. Williams Company, supra at 982 .”
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.