Northern States Power Co. v. Prairie Island Mdewakanton Sioux Indian Community’s Empirical Analysis
991 F.2d 458 · 1993
Citation profile
27 federal appellate · 7 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 58 later decisions — most recently August 2019 · most notably Baker Electric Cooperative, Inc. v. Chaske (1994), CSX Transportation, Inc. v. Williams (2005)
27 federal appellate · 7 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.
Relationships
Relies on Ex Parte: Edward T Young · Santa Clara Pueblo v. Martinez · Oklahoma Tax Commission v. Citizen Band Potawatomi Indian Tribe of Oklahoma · Dataphase Systems, Inc. v. C L Systems, Inc. · Peterkin v. Pennsylvania
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 58 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Indian tribes are expressly subjected to the Act’s preemption rules. Every relevant subsection of section 1811 contains the language “state or political subdivision thereof or Indian tribe.” See 49 U.S.C.App. § 1811(a)-(d). The Act’s plain language indicates that, sovereign immunity notwithstanding, states and Indian tribes are subject to the preemption rules, including the provision that allows preemption cases to be brought in “any court of competent jurisdiction.” 49 U.S.CApp. § 1811(c)(2). This language is sufficient to constitute an express waiver of tribal sovereignty.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“'tread lightly in the absence of clear indications of legislative intent' when determining whether a particular federal statute waives tribal sovereign immunity.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“the named officer defendants have acted outside the amount of authority that the sovereign is capable of bestowing, an exception to the doctrine of sovereign immunity is invoked.... If the sovereign did not have the power to make a law, then the official by necessity acted outside the scope of his authority in enforcing it ....”
2 later decisions 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.