green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 1×
4.6 score
G Cite
cited 3× by 1 distinct case ·
“[B]ail is .... basic to our system of law”
Treatment trajectory · 1972 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1972
1999
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 11 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited "see"
Juan Segundo v. City of Rancho Mirage, a Municipal Corporation, Jean Chormicle Kapp v. City of Cathedral City, California
See Agua Caliente Band of Mission Indians v. County of Riverside, 442 F.2d 1184, 1185 (9th Cir.1971), cert. denied, 405 U.S. 933 , 92 S.Ct. 930 , 30 L.Ed.2d 809 (1972); Babbitt Ford, Inc. v. Navajo Indian Tribe, 710 F.2d 587, 594 (9th Cir.1983), cert. denied, 466 U.S. 926 , 104 S.Ct. 1707 , 80 L.Ed.2d 180 (1984).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. George Anderson
(2×)
See Agua Caliente Band of Mission Indians v. County of Riverside, 442 F.2d 1184, 1186 (9th Cir. 1971), cert. denied, 405 U.S. 933 , 92 S.Ct. 930 , 30 L.Ed.2d 809 (1972).
discussed
Cited "see"
People of South Naknek v. Bristol Bay Bor.
See Agua Caliente Band of Mission Indians v. Riverside County, 442 F.2d 1184, 1185-86 (9th Cir. 1971) cert. denied 405 U.S. 933 , 92 S.Ct. 930 , 30 L.Ed.2d 809 (1972); Moses v. Kinnear, 490 F.2d 21, 24-26 (9th Cir. 1974). 2 .
discussed
Cited "see"
Mescalero Apache Tribe v. O'Cheskey
Thomas v. Gay, 169 U.S. 264 , 18 *1073 S.Ct. 340, 42 L.Ed. 740 (1898); see Agua Caliente Band of Mission Indians v. County of Riverside, 442 F.2d 1184 (9th Cir. 1971), cert. denied 405 U.S. 933 , 92 S.Ct. 930 , 30 L.Ed.2d 809 (1972).
discussed
Cited "see"
Lawrence R. Fry and Nellie R. Fry, Husband and Wife v. United States
(2×)
also: Cited "see, e.g."
Accord, Agua Caliente Band of Mission Ind. v. County of Riverside, 442 F.2d 1184 , 1187 & n.15 (9th Cir. 1971), cert. denied, 405 U.S. 933 , 92 S.Ct. 930 , 30 L.Ed.2d 809 (1972).
discussed
Cited "see"
George D. Scott v. Eversole Mortuary, a Partnership
(2×)
See Agua Caliente Band of Mission Indians v. County of Riverside, 442 F.2d 1184 (9th Cir. 1971) (dissenting opinion), Cert. denied, 405 U.S. 933 , 92 S.Ct. 930 , 30 L.Ed.2d 809 (1972). 27 According to the complaint, the appellees refused to conduct funeral services for the deceased Indians in its "Caucasian" mortuary solely and only because of the racial derivation of the deceased.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
American Postal Workers Union v. United States Postal Service
Furthermore, “a plausible claim of a ‘chilling effect’ on the exercise of [first amendment rights] meets the irreparable harm requirement.” Maceira v. Pagan, 649 F.2d 8, 18 (1st Cir.1981); see also Katz v. McAulay, 438 F.2d 1058 , 1060 n. 3 (2d Cir.1971), cert. denied, 405 U.S. 933 , 92 S.Ct. 930 , 30 L.Ed.2d 809 (1972); Chicago Area Military Project v. City of Chicago, 508 F.2d 921, 926 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 421 U.S. 992 , 95 S.Ct. 1999 , 44 L.Ed.2d 483 *408 (1975).
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Keaukaha-Panaewa Farmers Association v. Hawaiian Homes Commission
See, e.g., Agua Caliente Band of Mission Indians v. County of Riverside, 442 F.2d 1184, 1186 (9th Cir. 1971), Cert. denied, 405 U.S. 933 , 92 S.Ct. 930 , 30 L.Ed.2d 890 (1972).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
In Re the State Motor Fuel Tax Liability of A. G. E. Corp.
See also, Agua Caliente Band of Mission Ind. v. County of Riverside, 442 F.2d 1184 (9th Cir. 1971), cert. denied, 405 U.S. 933 , 92 S.Ct. 930 , 30 L.Ed.2d 809 (1972); Norvell v. Sangre de Cristo Development Co. Inc., 372 F.Supp. 348 (D.N.M. 1974), rev’d on other grounds, 519 F.2d 370 (10th Cir. 1975); Prince v. Board of Ed. of Cent.
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Keaukaha-Panaewa Community Ass'n v. Hawaiian Homes Commission
See, e.g., Agua Caliente Band of Mission Indians v. County of Riverside, 442 F.2d 1184, 1186 (9th Cir. 1971), cert. denied, 405 U.S. 933 , 92 S.Ct. 930 , 30 L.Ed.2d 890 (1972).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Agua Caliente Band of Mission Indians
v.
County of Riverside, California
v.
County of Riverside, California
No. 71-183.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Feb 22, 1972.
C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.
Mr. Justice Douglas, Mr. Justice Brennan, and Mr. Justice Marshall are of the opinion that certiorari should be granted.