Bowen v. Doyle’s Empirical Analysis
1995
Citation profile
6 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 17 later decisions — most recently May 2012
6 district · 2 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. § 1162 · 25 U.S.C. § 1302 (§ 202 of the Indian Civil Rights Act of 1968) · 25 U.S.C. § 232 · 25 U.S.C. § 233 · 25 U.S.C. § 282 · 28 U.S.C. § 1331 · 28 U.S.C. § 1332 (Class Action Fairness Act of 2005) · 28 U.S.C. § 1343
Relies on Younger v. Harris · Ex Parte: Edward T Young · Pennhurst State School and Hospital v. Halderman · District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman · Murray v. Carrier
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 17 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Rooker ¡Feldman ... is concerned with the impact of a federal action on a final state court judgment.... ... This case affects a pending state court proceeding — the very continuation of which, in and of itself, directly and impermissibly interferes with an Indian tribe’s treaty-protected rights of self-government and sovereignty. This Court’s authority to proceed with this suit does not implicate any state interest in a state court’s final judgment as protected by Rooker/Feldman. The Rooker/Feldman doctrine is not ... a broad rule that deprives federal courts of jurisdiction whenever a state court has issued any order in a pending suit. To the contrary ... [it] only preclude[s] federal district court jurisdiction where the suit is in fact a collateral attack on a final state court judgment.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“where an assertion of tribal jurisdiction “is motivated by a desire to harass or is conducted in bad faith,” cf. Juidice v. Vail, 430 U.S. 327, 338 [ 97 S.Ct. 1211, 1218 , 51 L.Ed.2d 376 ] (1977), or where the action is patently violative of express jurisdictional prohibitions, or where exhaustion would be futile because of the lack of an adequate opportunity to challenge the court’s jurisdiction.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“Allegations of corruption, bias or error by the Peacemakers Court must be presented first to the Peacemakers Court for resolution. Any alleged error in the Peacemakers Court decision can and should be reviewed in the Nation’s Court of Appeals. A litigant cannot avoid the tribal court exhaustion requirement by declining to pursue appellate remedies that are available in the tribal court system.”
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.