43 Cal. 2d 342 - People v. Carmen’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

44 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 46 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““While there was evidence that defendant and the victim were “Indians,” the use of this term, without more, shows only that the persons were Indian by race and blood. That fact in insufficient to vest in the federal government exclusive jurisdiction over a crime committed in Indian country, because such jurisdiction does not exist when the crime involves Indians who have been emancipated in some manner, as, for example, by severing tribal relations and taking on civilised habits or by receiving a conveyance of allotted lands by patent in fee from the federal government. 25 U.S. C.A. § 349; Eugene Sol Louie v. United States, 9 Cir., 274 F. 47, 49 (murder) ; People v. Ketchum, 73 Cal. 635, 638-639 , 15 P. 353 (recognizing the principle but not indicating whether the murder involved was committed in Indian country); State v. Bush, 195 Minn. 413 , 263 N.W. 300, 302-303 ; State v. Campbell, 53 Minn. 354 , 55 N.W. 553, 554 , 21 L.R.A. 169 ; State v. Monroe, 83 Mont. 556 , 274 P. 840, 842-843 (manslaughter); People ex rel. Schuyler v. Livingstone, 123 Misc. 605 , 205 N.Y.S. 888, 894-895 ; State v. Nimrod, 30 S.D. 239 , 138 N.W. 377, 378-379 ; State v. Howard, 33 Wash. 250 , 74 P. 382, 384-385 (murder); see also State ex rel. Irvine v. District Court, 125 Mont. 398 , 239 P.2d 272, 275 (burglary); State v. Big Sheep, 75 Mont. 219 , 243 P. 1067, 1070, 1071 . These cases are to the effect that an Indian who has become emancipated is to be treated like any non-Indian for the purposes of ”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Attebery · 48 Cal. 2d 851 - In Re Carmen

2. “We have concluded that the proposed offer to produce additional evidence on the appeal should be denied. Furthermore, even assuming that additional evidence could be received on appeal in this class of cases by stipulation or otherwise, the facts stated in the so-called `stipulation' as well as shown in the entire record are insufficient to show exclusive jurisdiction in the federal courts.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 48 Cal. 2d 851 - In Re Carmen

3. ““. . . Section 4% of article VI of the Constitution and section 956a of the Code of Civil Procedure permit receipt of additional evidence on appeal only where trial by jury is not a matter of right or has been waived, and it has been definitely held that an application such as that made by the defendant must be denied where, as here, a jury trial was not waived. ’ ’”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. People v. McKinney