State v. Klindt’s Empirical Analysis
1989
Citation profile
6 federal appellate · 12 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 23 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently December 2024
6 federal appellate · 12 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 18 U.S.C. § 1151 (Indian Crimes Act of 1976) · 18 U.S.C. § 1152 · 25 U.S.C. § 1321
Relies on United States v. Wheeler · Moe v. Confederated Salish & Kootenai Tribes of the Flathead Reservation · Adams v. Texas · United States v. John · Draper 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 23 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[T]he State of Oklahoma does not have jurisdiction over crimes committed by or against an Indian in Indian Country.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. RYDER v. STATE · STATE v. LAWHORN“Jurisdiction over Indian Country has been given to either the states or the federal government through statutes. The Act of August 15, 1953, Pub.L. No. 88-280, 67 Stat. 588 (1953) provided the states permission to assume criminal and civil jurisdiction over any “Indian Country” within the borders of the state. Under this public law, Oklahoma could have, without the consent of the affected Indians, assumed jurisdiction over any Indian Country in the state by constitutional amendment. Because of Title IV of the Civil Rights Act of 1968, 25 U.S.C. §§ 1321-1326 (1970), however the consent of the affected Indians is now required before a State is permitted to assume criminal and civil jurisdiction over “Indian Country....” The State of Oklahoma has never acted pursuant to Public Law 83-280 or Title IV of the Civil Rights Act to assume jurisdiction over the “Indian Country” within its borders.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. RYDER v. STATE · Cravatt v. State“See 25 U.S.C. §§ 1321 (a) and 1322(a) (1970); . . . The State of Oklahoma has never acted pursuant to Public Law 83--280 or Title IV of the Civil Rights Act to assume jurisdiction over the”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. RYDER v. STATE
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.