Negonsott v. Samuels’s Empirical Analysis
933 F.2d 818 · 1991
Citation profile
13 federal appellate · 4 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 26 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently April 2010 · most notably Negonsott v. Samuels (1993), Chemical Weapons Working Group, Inc. v. United States Department of the Army (1997)
13 federal appellate · 4 district ·
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.
Appellate journey
Relationships
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 113 · 18 U.S.C. § 1153 · 18 U.S.C. § 3242 · 18 U.S.C. § 3243
Relies on Reiter v. Sonotone Corp. · United States v. Wheeler · United States v. Kagama · Bryan v. Itasca County · Oliphant v. Suquamish Indian Tribe
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 26 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Jurisdiction is conferred on the State of Kansas over offenses committed by or against Indians on Indian reservations, including trust or restricted allotments, within the State of Kansas, to the same extent as its courts have jurisdiction over offenses committed elsewhere within the State in accordance with the laws of the State. This section shall not deprive the courts of the United States of jurisdiction over offenses defined by the laws of the United States committed by or against Indians on Indian reservations.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“statutes should be construed so that their provisions are harmonious with each other”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“whether Congress intended to grant Kansas courts concurrent jurisdiction with federal courts over the crimes enumerated in the [Indian] Major Crimes Act, or whether by the second sentence of the Kansas Act Congress intended to retain exclusive jurisdiction in the federal courts over those specific crimes.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Negonsott v. Samuels
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.