green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 3×
9.2 score
G Cite
cited 2× by 2 distinct cases, last quoted 1993 ·
…when congress has chosen to limit or waive the sovereign immunity of indian tribes, it has done so in clear language.
⚠ not in text
Treatment trajectory · 1991 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1991
2008
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 8 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Maynard v. Narragansett Tribe
when congress has chosen to limit _____ ______ or waive the sovereign immunity of indian tribes, it has done so in __ clear language.
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Maynard v. Narragansett Tribe
when congress has chosen to limit or waive the sovereign immunity of indian tribes, it has done so in clear language.
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Kenneth L. Maynard v. Narragansett Indian Tribe
when congress has chosen to limit or waive the sovereign immunity of indian tribes, it has done so in clear language.
cited
Cited "see"
Banner v. United States
See Fluent v. Salamanca Indian Lease Authority, 928 F.2d 542 , 546—47 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 818 , 112 S.Ct. 74 , 116 L.Ed.2d 48 (1991) (hereinafter “Circuit Decision”).
cited
Cited "see"
Aquinda v. Texaco, Inc.
See Fluent v. Salamanca Indian Lease Authority, 928 F.2d 542, 547-48 (2d Cir.1991), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 818 , 112 S.Ct. 74 , 116 L.Ed.2d 48 (1991).
discussed
Cited "see"
Storey v. Shearson Lehman Hutton, Inc.
See Clark v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc., 924 F.2d 550, 555-56 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, --- U.S. ---- 112 S.Ct. 74 , 116 L.Ed.2d 48 (1991); Ottenritter v. Shearson Lehman Hutton, Inc., 727 F.Supp. 980, 984 (D.Md.1989). 2 11 The Storeys argue that the clause is not ambiguous and expressly excludes federal securities claims.
discussed
Cited "see"
Storey v. Shearson Lehman Hutton, Inc.
See Clark v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc., 924 F.2d 550, 555-56 (4th Cir.), cert. de nied, — U.S. - 112 S.Ct. 74 , 116 L.Ed.2d 48 (1991); Ottenritter v. Shearson Lehman Hutton, Inc., 727 F.Supp. 980, 984 (D.Md.1989). 2 The Storeys argue that the clause is not ambiguous and expressly excludes federal securities claims.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States ex rel. Hall v. Tribal Development Corp.
In this respect, it is worth repeating the oft-quoted observation of the Ninth Circuit that “[n]o procedural principle is more deeply imbedded in the common law than that, in an action to set aside a lease or a contract, all parties who 'may be affected by the determination of the action are indispensable.” Lomayaktewa v. Hathaway, 520 F.2d 1324, 1325 (9th Cir.1975), cert. denied, 425 U.S. 903 , 96 S.Ct. 1492 , 47 L.Ed.2d 752 (1976); see also Fluent v. Salamanca Indian Lease Auth., 928 F.2d 542 , 547 (2d Cir.) (quoting Lomayaktewa, 520 F.2d at 1325 ), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 818 , 112 S.Ct.…
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Foster McGaw Hospital of Loyola University of Chicago
v.
Building Material Chauffeurs, Teamsters & Helpers Welfare Fund of Chicago, Local 786
v.
Building Material Chauffeurs, Teamsters & Helpers Welfare Fund of Chicago, Local 786
No. 90-1888.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Oct 7, 1991.
Published
Citer courts: First Circuit (3)
C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.