State v. Perank’s Empirical Analysis
1993
Citation profile
10 federal appellate · 2 district · 7 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 20 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently November 2017
10 federal appellate · 2 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. § 1151 (Indian Crimes Act of 1976) · 18 U.S.C. § 1152 · 25 U.S.C. § 479
Relies on Allen v. McCurry · Montana v. United States · Commissioner v. Sunnen · Blackledge v. Perry · Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc.
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 20 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Even if the defense had been raised in this case, its application against the State of Utah would be problematic. Although we have held that collateral estoppel does not require mutuality of parties when it is raised defensively against private litigants, ... we have not decided whether the doctrine of nonmutual collateral estoppel applies against the State. Federal law generally requires full mutuality of parties when collateral estoppel is applied against the government. See United States v. Mendoza, 464 U.S. 154 , 104 S.Ct. 568 , 78 L.Ed.2d 379 (1984); see also United States v. Stauffer Chemical Co., 464 U.S. 165, 169 , 104 S.Ct. 575, 577 , 78 L.Ed.2d 388 (1984); Allen v. McCurry, 449 U.S. 90 , 101 S.Ct. 411 , 66 L.Ed.2d 308 (1980); Montana v. United States, 440 U.S. 147 , 155— 62, 99 S.Ct. 970, 974-78 , 59 L.Ed.2d 210 (1979); Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Sunnen, 333 U.S. 591 , 68 S.Ct. 715 , 92 L.Ed. 898 (1948). Nonmutual collateral estoppel does not apply against the government because of overriding policy considerations. Mendoza, 464 U.S. at 163-64 , 104 S.Ct. at 574 . The rule requiring full mutuality of parties has also been required with respect to estopping state governments. See Hercules Carriers, Inc. v. Florida, 768 F.2d 1558 , 1577-82 (11th Cir.1985). See generally Restatement (Second) of Judgments § 28 (1982); 18 Charles A. Wright, Arthur R. Miller & Edward H. Cooper, Federal Practice and Procedure § 4425 (1981 & Supp. 1992). As the Utah cases cited in f”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent“[Money is hereby appropriated to] enable the Secretary of the Interior to do the necessary surveying and otherwise carry out the purposes of so much of the Act of May twenty-seventh, nineteen hundred and two, . . . as provides for the allotment of the . . . Uintah and White River Utes in Utah . . .: Provided, however, That the Secretary of the Interior shall forthwith send an inspector to obtain the consent of the Uintah and White River Ute Indians to an allotment of their lands as directed by the Act of May twenty-seventh, nineteen hundred and two, and if their consent, as therein provided, can not be obtained by June first, nineteen hundred and three, then the Secretary of the Interior shall cause to be allotted to each of said Uintah and White River Ute Indians the quantity and character of land named and described in said Act: And provided further, That the grazing lands to be set apart for the use of the Uintah, White River Utes, and other Indians, as provided by public resolution numbered thirty-one, of June nineteenth, nineteen hundred and two, be confined to the lands south of the Strawberry River on said Uintah Reservation, and shall not exceed two hundred and fifty thousand acres: And provided further, That the time for opening the unallotted lands to public entry on said Uintah Reservation, as provided by the Act of May twenty-seventh, nineteen hundred and two, be, and the same is hereby, extended to October first, nineteen hundred and four.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrencee.g. Hagen Utah“That the time for opening the unallotted lands to public entry on the Uintah Reservation, in Utah, as provided by the Acts of May twenty-seventh, nineteen hundred and two, and March third, nineteen hundred and three, be, and the same is hereby extended to March tenth, nineteen hundred and five, and five thousand dollars is hereby appropriated to enable the Secretary of the Interior to do the necessary surveying, and otherwise carry out the purposes of so much of the Act of May twenty-seventh, nineteen hundred and two, . . . as provides for the allotment of the Indians of the Uintah and White River Utes in Utah.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrencee.g. Hagen Utah
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.