A common law for our age of colonialism: The judicial divestiture of Indian tribal authority over nonmembers
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The Court's decisions have added a layer of inconsistency and unpredictability, making federal Indian law confusing and hard to navigate, especially for judges unfamiliar with Native communities and the history of federal-tribal-state relations.
“The Court's decisions have added a layer of inconsistency and unpredictability, making federal Indian law confusing and hard to navigate, especially for judges, who tend to be unfamiliar with Native communities and the history of”
From Dividing Authority Three Ways: Federal–Tribal–State Relations after<i>Oklahoma v. Castro-Huerta</i> (2023) · cites this paper as Frickey 1999, 4-5
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Dividing Authority Three Ways: Federal–Tribal–State Relations after<i>Oklahoma v. Castro-Huerta</i>
Carlson, K. M. (2023) · Publius: The Journal of Federalism · doi:10.1093/publius/pjad020 · Cited by 1 · see citing works
- Authors
- Frickey, P. P.
- Corresponding author
- Frickey, Philip P.
- Venue
- The Yale Law Journal
- Publisher
- JSTOR
- Published
- 1999-10
- Volume
- 109
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 1
- ISSN
- 0044-0094 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W4239168021
- Cited by
- 25
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2025: 2 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 1 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 1 · 2013: 2
- FWCI
- 12.03
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- The Yale Law Journal (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Law › Indigenous Peoples' Rights and Law
- Social Sciences › Anthropology › Indigenous Cultures and History
- Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › American Constitutional Law and Politics
- Keywords
- tribal authority, tribal sovereignty, colonialism, tribal law, tribal jurisdiction, tribal courts, tribal land rights
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
