Ross v. Neff’s Empirical Analysis
905 F.2d 1349 · 1990
Citation profile
41 federal appellate · 17 district · 11 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 94 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently February 2025 · most notably Kaul v. Stephan (1996), Santoni v. Potter (2004)
41 federal appellate · 17 district · 11 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 · 18 U.S.C. § 1162 · 18 U.S.C. § 13 (Assimilative Crimes Act) · 25 U.S.C. § 1321 · 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act))
Relies on Anderson v. Creighton · Graham v. Connor · City of Oklahoma City v. Tuttle · Owen v. City of Independence · Michigan v. Summers
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 94 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Indian country is subject to exclusive federal or tribal criminal jurisdiction except as otherwise expressly provided by law. 18 U.S.C. § 1152 . Congress has granted general criminal jurisdiction to some states over Indian country within their borders, see, e.g., 18 U.S.C. §§ 1162 (various states), 3243 (Kansas), but no such provision has been made for Oklahoma . Congress has also provided, now in 25 U.S.C. § 1321 , a statutory method by which a state, with the consent of the tribe, can assume jurisdiction over Indian country. Oklahoma, however, has not acted to assume jurisdiction by this method . . . Because the state of Oklahoma has neither received by express grant nor acted pursuant to congressional authorization to assume criminal jurisdiction over this Indian country , Adair County, its sheriff, and its subordinate police officers had no jurisdiction to arrest [an Indian for a crime in Indian Country].”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“an arrest made outside of the arresting officer's jurisdiction violates the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution and is therefore actionable pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 under the appropriate circumstances,”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[a] warrantless arrest executed outside of the arresting officer's jurisdiction is analogous to a warrantless arrest without probable cause.”
2 later decisions 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.