Duro v. Reina’s Empirical Analysis
851 F.2d 1136 · 1987
Citation profile
15 federal appellate · 2 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 23 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently July 2013
15 federal appellate · 2 district · 1 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. § 1111 · 18 U.S.C. § 1151 (Indian Crimes Act of 1976) · 18 U.S.C. § 1152 · 18 U.S.C. § 1153 · 18 U.S.C. § 13 (Assimilative Crimes Act) · 18 U.S.C. § 2 · 25 U.S.C. § 1302 (§ 202 of the Indian Civil Rights Act of 1968) · 25 U.S.C. § 1321
Relies on Adams v. United States Ex Rel. McCann · Morton v. Mancari · Santa Clara Pueblo v. Martinez · Atlantic Richfield Co. v. Newman Oil Co. · United States v. Wheeler
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.
“I acknowledge that the exclusion of nonmember Indians from the jurisdiction of tribal courts will impose somewhat greater responsibilities on certain United States Attorneys. Nonmember offenses not directed at another Indian, and not described in the Major Crimes Act, [18] U.S.C. § 1153, must be prosecuted by these officials. This category embraces such things as drunk and disorderly conduct. The majority also suggests that state prosecutors and state courts may become involved in law enforcement. This concern appears to be premised on the assumption that an offense by a nonmember Indian against another Indian, which is not a major crime, would not be covered by 18 U.S.C. § 1152 were my view to prevail. Thus, the majority suggests state law enforcement would be required to fill the gap. * * * The fear of the majority can be put this way. As they see it, an offense which is not a major one by an Indian against an Indian is excluded from federal jurisdiction when tribal jurisdiction is lacking because the offender is a nonmember. I suggest that under those circumstances the offense “escapes” the first exception to the general rule of [18] U.S.C. § 1152 but does not “escape” the broad reach of 18 U.S.C. § 1152 . That is, the offense remains an offense by an Indian within Indian country and thus subject to the general laws of the United States, but, for the reason stated -here, should not be considered as one committed by one Indian against another within the meaning of the first”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“Any Indian who commits against the person or property of another Indian or other person any of the following offenses, namely, murder, manslaughter, kidnaping, rape, carnal knowledge of any female, not his wife, who has not attained the age of sixteen years, assault with intent to commit rape, incest, assault with intent to commit murder, assault with a dangerous weapon, assault resulting in serious bodily injury, arson, burglary, robbery, and larceny within the Indian country, shall be subject to the same laws and penalties as all other persons committing any of the above offenses, within the exclusive jurisdiction of the United States.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrencee.g. People v. Morgan“a totality of circumstances, including genealogy, group identification, and lifestyle, in which no one factor is dispositive.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.