Northern Cheyenne Tribe of Northern Cheyenne Indian Reservation v. Adsit’s Empirical Analysis
721 F.2d 1187 · 1983
Citation profile
5 federal appellate · 7 district · 3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 18 later decisions — most recently May 2006
5 federal appellate · 7 district · 3 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
Relies on Arizona v. San Carlos Apache Tribe of Ariz. · Kaiser Steel Corp. v. W. S. Ranch Co. · Watts v. Seward School Board · Northern Cheyenne Tribe v. Adsit
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 18 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The question of jurisdiction under state law is one to be definitively resolved by the state courts, as the Supreme Court has held. Id. [103 S.Ct.] at 3210; see also id. at 3215 n. 21 (contemplating a state court ruling on the jurisdictional question). Any state court desiring to adjudicate Indian water rights would of necessity rule on its jurisdiction to do so; there is thus no need for us, or the district court, to reach that issue. Moreover, the question of adequacy of the state proceedings is one best decided by the state courts in the first instance. This course of actions seems to be what the Court contemplated when it stated, ‘State courts, as much as federal courts, have a solemn obligation to follow federal law. Moreover, any state court decision alleged to abridge Indian water rights protected by federal law can expect to receive ... a particularized and exacting scrutiny____' Id. at 3216. We therefore will not consider the question of adequacy prior to conclusion of the state court proceedings, and we instruct the district courts to do the same.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage““well enough along so that dismissal would itself constitute a waste of judicial resources and an invitation to duplicative effort.” A stay of the federal action[] would be preferable to a dismissal here so the federal forum would most readily be available if warranted by a “significant change of circumstances.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.