United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians v. Oklahoma ex rel. Moss’s Empirical Analysis
927 F.2d 1170 · 1991
Citation profile
18 federal appellate · 9 district · 6 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 37 later decisions — most recently December 2018 · most notably Rhode Island v. Narragansett Indian Tribe (1994), Sycuan Band of Mission Indians v. Roache (1994)
18 federal appellate · 9 district · 6 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. § 1166 (§ 23 of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act of 1988) · 18 U.S.C. § 13 (Assimilative Crimes Act) · 18 U.S.C. § 1955 · 25 U.S.C. § 2713 (§ 14 of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act of 1988) · 25 U.S.C. § 81
Relies on Edelman v. Jordan · Dandridge v. Williams · United States v. Batchelder · Northern Pipeline Construction Co. v. Marathon Pipe Line Co. · Ohio State Board of Education v. Reed
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 37 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Congress has clearly occupied the regulatory field on Indian gaming.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“[t]he United States shall have exclusive jurisdiction over criminal prosecutions of violations of State gambling laws that are made applicable under this section to Indian country”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“[Ujnless a tribe affirmatively elects to have state laws and state jurisdiction extend to tribal lands, the Congress will not unilaterally impose or allow state jurisdiction on Indian lands for the regulation of Indian gaming activities. The mechanism for facilitating the unusual relationship in which a tribe might affirmatively seek the extension of state jurisdiction and the application of state laws to activities conducted on Indian land is a tribal-state compact. In no instance, does S. 555 contemplate the extension of state jurisdiction or the application of state laws for any other purpose.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.