Tunica-Biloxi Tribe v. Louisiana’s Empirical Analysis
964 F.2d 1536 · 1992
Citation profile
6 federal appellate · 1 district · 1 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on Moe v. Confederated Salish & Kootenai Tribes of the Flathead Reservation · Washington v. Confederated Tribes of the Colville Indian Reservation · Mescalero Apache Tribe v. Jones · California v. Cabazon Band of Mission Indians · Salsbury Industries v. United States
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 12 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“... based upon a flawed reading of Ramah. The [Supreme Court] premised its analysis in Ramah on the fact that the state was seeking to regulate an on-reservation activity. The Court remarked that the state could not explain the source of its power to tax the privilege of doing business "on an indian reservation” when the power "is exclusively bestowed by the Federal Government.” 964 F.2d at 1542 (internal citations omitted).”
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.