United States v. White Horse’s Empirical Analysis
807 F.2d 1426 · 1986
Citation profile
39 federal appellate · 1 district · 7 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 50 later decisions — most recently August 2022 · most notably United States v. North (1990), United States v. Mentz (1988)
39 federal appellate · 1 district · 7 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. § 1163
Relies on In the Matter of Samuel Winship · Sandstrom v. Montana · Duncan v. State of Louisiana · Rose v. Clark · United States v. Martin Linen Supply Co.
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 50 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“the issue of whether the Telephone Authority was an Indian tribal organization required an assessment of the probative value of the ordinance establishing the Telephone Authority, the testimony regarding the managerial control the Tribe exerted over the Telephone Authority, the testimony concerning their financial relationship, and various other evidence that might have tended to prove that a sufficient nexus existed between the Tribe and the Telephone Authority.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“'when he instructs the jury as a matter of law that a fact essential to conviction has been established by the evidence, thus depriving the jury of the opportunity to make this finding.'”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“In the present case, the judge’s instructions to the jury deprived the jury of the ability to determine whether the facts essential to appellants’ convictions were established by the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt. This was harmful error. Appellants were deprived of their full constitutional right to a jury trial, and their convictions must accordingly be reversed.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Smallwood 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.