State v. Zaman

How courts have described this case

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

• “For on-reservation activities, the status of the defendant as an Indian or non-Indian is the sine qua non of federal Indian law.”
• “[A]ll Indian reservations in Arizona are within the political and governmental, as well as geographical, boundaries of the state.” (citation omitted)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

2 cases in this archive cite this case.

• State of Arizona v. Raymond John
  Court of Appeals of Arizona· 2013-09-23· cited 1×
• Medina v. Chee
  Court of Appeals of Arizona· 2023-10-05

Cites

13 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

• McClanahan v. Arizona State Tax Commission
  Supreme Court· 1973-03-27· cited 899×
• Oliphant v. Suquamish Indian Tribe
  Supreme Court· 1978-03-06· cited 496×
• Organized Village of Kake v. Egan
  Supreme Court· 1962-03-19· cited 328×
• United States v. McBratney
  Supreme Court· 1882-03-18· cited 270×
• Dixon v. Picopa Construction Co.
  Arizona Supreme Court· 1989-01-24· cited 75×
• Langford v. Monteith
  Supreme Court· 1880-04-19· cited 53×
• Tracy v. Superior Court
  Arizona Supreme Court· 1991-04-23· cited 42×
• Porter v. Hall
  Arizona Supreme Court· 1928-11-02· cited 37×
• Francisco v. State
  Arizona Supreme Court· 1976-09-28· cited 36×
• Arizona Department of Revenue v. Blaze Construction Co.
  Supreme Court· 1999-04-27· cited 34×
• Dick v. Peoples Bank of Bloomington
  Supreme Court· 1998-03-02· cited 12×
• State v. Zaman
  Arizona Supreme Court· 1997-10-09· cited 10×
• State v. Blaze Const. Co., Inc.
  Court of Appeals of Arizona· 1997-04-29· cited 8×