State Securities, Inc. v. Anderson’s Empirical Analysis
1973
Citation profile
48 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 50 later decisions — most recently February 2019 · most notably Dixon v. Picopa Construction Co. (1989), Chino v. Chino (1977)
48 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. § 1311 · 25 U.S.C. § 1321 · 25 U.S.C. § 1322 · 25 U.S.C. § 2 · 25 U.S.C. § 231
Relies on Williams v. Lee · Samuel Worcester v. The State of Georgia · H. K. Porter Co. v. National Labor Relations Board · Organized Village of Kake v. Egan · Natural Gas Pipeline Co. of America v. Harrington
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.
“Exclusive tribal jurisdiction exists where an action involves a proprietary interest in Indian land; or when an Indian sues another Indian on a claim for relief recognized only by tribal custom and law; or when an Indian is being sued by a non-Indian over an occurrence or transaction arising in Indian country.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“"In an attempt to determine whether Indian immunity from process is necessary in this case to protect the right of reservation Indians to make their own laws and be ruled by them, we have surveyed a number of cases and other authorities. According to some court decisions some powers reserved to Indians for their exclusive jurisdiction, and which may therefore be necessary for Indian self-government, are: jurisdiction to try an offense committed on the reservation by or against an Indian, Williams v. United States, 327 U.S. 711 , 66 S.Ct. 778 , 90 L.Ed. 962 (1946); extradition powers, if a tribe has codified and exercises its own extradition law, Arizona ex rel. Merrill v. Turtle, 413 F.2d 683 (9th Cir.1969), cert. denied 396 U.S. 1003 , 90 S.Ct. 551 , 24 L.Ed.2d 494 (1970) * * *." (Emphasis supplied.)”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“Essentially, absent governing Acts of Congress, the question has always been whether the state action infringed on the right of reservation Indians to make their own laws and be ruled by them (citations omitted).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissente.g. Chino v. Chino
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.