Cordova v. Holwegner

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• recognizing overlap of Williams and Montana analyses and describing them as “merely different formulations of the same underlying concept”
• recognizing overlap of Williams and Montana analyses and describing them as \merely different formulations of the same underlying concept\
• describing Williams and Montana analyses as “merely different formulations of the same underlying concept”
• describing Williams and Montana analyses as \merely different formulations of the same underlying concept\
• “[W]e find nothing in the record indicating that the tribe has exclusive . . . jurisdiction over this garden-variety tort litigation between non[-]members that arose ... on the closed area of the reservation.”
• “The [Williams] infringement test and the Montana analysis examine the limits of tribal inherent sovereignty from different perspectives, the former by examining the extent of state jurisdiction and the latter by examining the extent of tribal jurisdiction.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).