Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
7 canonical passages across 5 cases, quoted by 21 opinions in total. These passages cluster together because the same opinions keep quoting them side by side: they state parts of one doctrine. The anchor passage is from United States v. Ricco Devon Prentiss.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | United States v. Ricco Devon Prentiss Anchor | green | “i write separately only to urge this court to reconsider its view, stated in the en banc decision in united states v. prentiss, 256 f.3d 971 (10th cir. 2001), that the non-indian status of the defendant is an element of the offense charged under 18 u.s.c. 1152 .” | 3 |
| 2 | United States v. Diaz | green | “our cases applying this test have approved a totality-of-the-evidence approach to determining indian status, although certain types of evidence, by themselves, may not be sufficient.” | 3 |
| 3 | United States v. Diaz | green | “to bring forth tribal officials to disprove an individual was a member of their tribes,” | 3 |
| 4 | United States v. Haggerty | green | “if . . . the exceptions are essential elements, then the government must also allege and affirmatively prove-every time it prosecutes a crime under 1152-that the defendant has not already been punished by the local law of the tribe and that there is no treaty stipulation that g…” | 3 |
| 5 | United States v. Simpkins | green | “when faced with a sufficiency challenge, a court asks only whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.” | 3 |
| 6 | United States v. Hebert | green | “although defendant identified as part-mexican, white, and latino/hispanic, that also does not show he has no indian ancestors.” | 3 |
| 7 | United States v. Hebert | green | “and even if relevant, the race evidence tells little because . . . someone can be both hispanic and native american.” | 3 |
A red or yellow flag on a member means the underlying case has negative treatment: for those, check the case page before relying on the passage.