2005 OK CR 25 - Murphy v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

4 federal appellate · 9 state decisions

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 16 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “(a) all land within the limits of any Indian reservation under the jurisdiction of the United States Government, notwithstanding the issuance of any patent, and, including rights-of-way running through the reservation, .... and (c) all Indian allotments, the Indian titles to which have not been extinguished, including rights-of-way running through the same.”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Murphy v. Royal · Murphy v. Royal

2. “The remaining issue, under proposition one, is whether or not the land in question is part of a Creek Natio'n reservation that has never been disestablished or is part of a dependent Indian community.[ 29 ] Unfortunately,- the - District Court decided, based upon the Assistant District Attorney’s urging, that these questions were beyond the scope of the evidentiary hearing, even though we clearly asked the Court to determine if the tract in question was Indian country under 18 U.S.C. § 1151 . Be that as it may, the error was alleviated when the District Court allowed Petitioner's![ 30 ] counsel to make an extended offer of proof regarding the testimony and evidence that would have been presented on these two questions had that opportunity been given. Accordingly, we find the error was harmless. Even if the evidence had been admitted, it is insufficient to convince us that the tract in question qualifies as a reservation or dependent Indian community. Petitioner’s proffered expert, Monta Sharon Blackwell, stated by affidavit that “[t]here was never a formal Creek Nation ‘reservation’ but for practical purposes” certain treaty language was “tantamount to a reservation under Federal law.” Thus, the “Creek Nation, historically and traditionally, is a confederacy of autonomous tribal towns, or Talwa, each with its own political organization and leadership.”[ 31 ] Ms. Blackwell and Jeff Dell[ 32 ] both took the position that the historical boundaries of the Creek Nation remained in”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Murphy v. Royal · Murphy v. Royal

3. “[A]ll Indians, committing against the person or property of another Indian or other person any of the following crimes, namely, murder ... within any Territory of the United States, and either within or without an Indian reservation, shall be subject therefor to the laws of such Territory relating to said crimes ... ; and all such Indians committing any of the above crimes against the person or property of another Indian or other person within the boundaries of any State of the United States, and within the limits of any Indian reservation, shall be subject to the same laws, tried in the same courts and in the same manner, and subject to the same penalties as are all other persons committing any of the above crimes within the exclusive jurisdiction of the United States.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Murphy v. Royal · Murphy v. Royal