76 Wis. 2d 247 - Sturdevant v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 federal appellate · 6 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 12 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “This court and the above cited authorities generally have reached the conclusion that a state has jurisdiction to try an Indian for an offense committed outside of the reservation boundaries but within the state, without resort to an interpretation of the various treaties existing between the federal government and the Indian tribe in question. Such a procedure flows from the concept of state sovereignty and resort to treaty interpretation under these circumstances is unnecessary. Since statehood, Wisconsin has exercised as one of the attributes of its sovereignty, civil and criminal jurisdiction over all lands within its boundaries with the exceptions noted in sec. 1.01, Stats. That civil and criminal jurisdiction, although an inherent attribute of sovereignty is also expressed in constitutional and statutory provisions. Art. VII, sec. 8 of the Wisconsin constitution states: "... The circuit courts shall have original jurisdiction in all matters civil and criminal within this state, not excepted in this constitution, and not hereafter prohibited by law;..." Sec. 252.03, Stats., describes the jurisdiction of a circuit court in part, as follows: "... The circuit courts . . . have power to hear and determine, within their respective circuits, all civil and criminal actions and proceedings unless exclusive jurisdiction is given to some other court”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 224 Wis. 2d 372 - State v. Elmer J. K.

2. “tribal activities conducted outside the reservation present different considerations. "State authority over Indians is yet more extensive over activities . . . not on any reservation." Organized Village of Kake [v. Egan , 369 U.S. 60 , 75 (1962)]. Absent express federal law to the contrary, Indians going beyond reservation boundaries have generally been held subject to nondiscriminatory state law otherwise applicable to all citizens of the State.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Opinion No. Oag 27-92, (1992)

3. “State authority over Indians is yet more extensive over activities . . . not on any reservation.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Opinion No. Oag 27-92, (1992)