State of Oklahoma v. State of Texas’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

21 federal appellate · 14 district · 32 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 108 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Sec. 1. All of the lands [ ] found to be in the State of Texas by the final decree of the Supreme Court of the United States, entered March 17th, 1930, in the case of the State of Oklahoma vs. the State of Texas, [ ] theretofore claimed by Oklahoma but now located in Lipscomb, Hemphill, Wheeler, Collingsworth and Childress Counties, are hereby offered for sale to the claimants of said lands as reflected by the Deed Records or other public records of the State of Oklahoma and under the laws of the State of Oklahoma at the time of the rendition of said decree [ ] and said lands shall be sold to such claimants as would have then owned said lands had the same been a part of Oklahoma, [ ]. The consideration for such sale shall be the sum of One ($1.00) Dollar per acre. Sec. 2. The rights and duties of the Special Land Board are transferred to the General Land Office, and the Special Land Board is abolished. [note — Section 2 of the original Act created the Special Land Board to determine who was entitled to purchase the lands under the Act]. The General Land Office shall have the power to [ ] make such surveys and investigations as may be necessary to carry out the provisions of this Act, and to adopt such rales, regulations and forms as it may deem expedient. Sec. 3. Any claimant to any portion of said lands who would have had title to same had it been located in Oklahoma, may make application to the Commissioner of the General Land Office to purchase the land claimed. [I]n event”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Jones v. P.A.W.N. Enterprises

2. ““It is well settled that governments as well as private persons, are bound by the practical line that has been recognized and adopted as their boundary. (Missouri v. Iowa, 7 How. 660, 670 , 12 L. Ed. 861, 865 ; New Mexico v. Colorado, 267 U.S. 30, 40 , 69 L. Ed. 499, 502 , 45 S. Ct. Rep. 202 ); and that a boundary line between two governments which has been run out, located and marked upon the earth, and afterwards recognized and acquiesced in by them for a long course of years, is conclusive, even if it be ascertained that it varies somewhat from the correct course; the line so established, taking effect in such case, as a definition of the true and ancient- boundary. (Virginia v. Tennessee, 148 U.S. 503, 522 , 37 L. Ed. 537, 544 , 13 Sup. Ct. Rep. 728; Maryland v. West Virginia, 217 U.S. 1, 42 , 54 L. Ed. 645, 658 , 30 Sup. Ct. Rep. 268 New Mexico v. Colorado, supra, 40 ).””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Brown v. Jarratt

3. ““And so, while the decree likewise conclusively determined that the boundary line between Texas and the territories of the United States followed the line of the true 100th meridian from its intersection with the South fork of Red river, it was, for like reason, not an adjudication as to the precise location of the meridian line, but left this matter open and undetermined.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Slaughter v. Crosby