Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 931 F.2d 636 - Tillett v. Lujan

Tillett v. Lujan’s Empirical Analysis

931 F.2d 636 · 1991

Citation profile

60
cited by 60 later decisions
2
states following
October 2020
most recently cited

11 federal appellate · 33 district · 2 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 60 later decisions — most recently October 2020 · most notably Pittsburg & Midway Coal Mining Co. v. Watchman (1995), Bank of Oklahoma v. Muscogee Nation (1992)

11 federal appellate · 33 district · 2 state decisions

4701991200020102020decided

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 25 U.S.C. § 1302 (§ 202 of the Indian Civil Rights Act of 1968) · 25 U.S.C. § 2 · 28 U.S.C. § 1331 · 28 U.S.C. § 2284 · 8 U.S.C. § 1401 (§ 301 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (McCarran-Walter))

Relies on Santa Clara Pueblo v. Martinez · United States v. Wheeler · National Farmers Union Insurance Companies 27 v. Crow Tribe of Indians · Iowa Mutual Insurance v. LaPlante · Roberts v. Louisiana

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 60 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “as a matter of comity, a federal court should not exercise jurisdiction over cases arising under its federal question or diversity jurisdiction, if those cases are also subject to tribal jurisdiction, until the parties have exhausted their tribal remedies.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “required by Act of Congress, or when an action is filed challenging the constitutionality of the apportionment of congressional districts or the apportionment of any statewide legislative body.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “does not preclude [the plaintiff] from thereafter bringing a suit in federal court”
    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.