Hardin v. White Mountain Apache Tribe’s Empirical Analysis
779 F.2d 476 · 1985
Citation profile
45 federal appellate · 8 district · 19 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 105 later decisions — most recently November 2021 · most notably Oviatt Waugh v. Pearce Oviatt Waugh (1992), Benigni v. City of Hemet (1988)
45 federal appellate · 8 district · 19 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 28 U.S.C. § 1291 · 28 U.S.C. § 1331 · 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act))
Relies on Christiansburg Garment Co. v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission · Hughes v. Rowe · Roadway Express, Inc. v. Piper · Santa Clara Pueblo v. Martinez · Hall v. Cole
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 105 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“acting in their representative capacity and within the scope of their authority.”
8 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent“The Supreme Court has held that Indian tribes do not have inherent sovereign powers to try and punish non-Indians for criminal acts ... On the other hand, the Supreme Court has also acknowledged that Indian tribes retain inherent sovereign power to exercise ‘some forms of civil jurisdiction over non-Indians on their reservations.’ ... Hardin’s exclusion falls within the Tribe’s civil powers. ‘[T]he regulation is designed to keep reservation peace and protect the health and safety of tribal members,’ ..., and as such is a permissible and ‘necessary exercise of tribal self-government and territorial management.’ ... Although Hardin attempts to characterize his exclusion as punitive in nature, retribution cannot be the goal of an ordinance that is triggered by a nonmember’s crimes against an entirely separate, external state or federal sovereign. The United States has already imposed its own punishment for the nonmember’s crime. The intent of the tribal ordinance is merely to remove a person who ‘threatens or has some direct effect on the ... health or welfare of the tribe,’ ..., a permissible civil regulation of the Tribe’s internal order.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“patently barred by the Supreme Court discussion of the scope of tribal sovereignty.”
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.