State v. Cooper’s Empirical Analysis
1996
Citation profile
1 district · 85 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 86 later decisions — most recently June 2015 · most notably State v. Bourgeois (1997), State v. Michielli (1997)
1 district · 85 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. § 1162 · 25 U.S.C. § 1321 · 25 U.S.C. § 467 · 25 U.S.C. § 476 · 28 U.S.C. § 1360
Relies on Nantahala Power & Light Co. v. Thornburg · Oklahoma Tax Commission v. Citizen Band Potawatomi Indian Tribe of Oklahoma · Young v. United States ex rel. Vuitton · DeCoteau v. District County Court for the Tenth Judicial District · Washington v. Confederated Bands & Tribes of the Yakima Indian Nation
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 86 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[o]peration of motor vehicles on the public streets, alleys, roads and highways.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“(a) all land within the limits of any Indian reservation under the jurisdiction of the United States Government, notwithstanding the issuance of any patent, and, including rights-of-way running through the reservation, (b) all dependent Indian communities within the borders of the United States whether within the original or subsequently acquired territory thereof, and whether within or without the limits of a state, and (c) all Indian allotments, the Indian titles to which have not been extinguished, including rights-of-way running through the same.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Squally“[ State v. ] Sohappy does not, as Cooper suggests, hold that `reservation' includes all lands held in trust for the benefit of Indians.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Jim
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.