Murphy v. Royal’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

3 federal appellate ·

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

1. “[W]e start with the statutory text .... ”). 56 . Congress also assigned new powers at the town level. It provided for the operation of light and power companies within the Indian Territory and granted new taxing powers to towns with more than two thousand people. See §§ 25-26, 34 Stat. at 146-48. 57 . Purchasers of town lots who failed to make timely payments were liable to forfeit the purchase and have the Secretary re-sell the land at public auction. § 12, 34 Stat. at 141-42. 58 . Congress made several changes to the laws of descent and inheritance. For allottees who died intestate and without heirs, their lands ' would revert to the Tribe or escheat to the future state or territorial government. § 21, 34 Stat. at 145, Adult Indian heirs were permitted to sell the lands they inherited, subject to the Secretary's approval. § 22, 34 Stat. at 145. Adult Indians were permitted to make wills, subject to court oversight when the will disinherited certain closely related family members. § 23, 34 Stat. at 145. 59 . Later in 1906, Congress delayed the implementation of § 15—providing for the sale of tribal property—and clarified it would "not take effect until the date of the dissolution of the tribal governments of the Choctaw, Chickasaw, Cherokee, Creek, and Seminole tribes.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. Murphy v. Royal

2. “). 64 . Had the State chosen to. present its eight-statute, cumulative-effect argument as step-two -contextual evidence—as opposed to step-one textual evidence—we would still conclude Congress did not disestablish the Creek Reservation. The eight statutes reveal a congressional hostility to Creek independence consistent with the assimilationist impulse of the era. See Solem, 465 U.S. at 466-69 , 104 S.Ct. 1161 . But they do not show, and certainly not unequivocally,”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. Murphy v. Royal

3. “to pay the Pawnee tribe of Indians in Oklahoma, formerly a part of the Indian Territory, for all their right, title, claim, and interest of every kind and character in and to all that tract of country between the Cimarron and Arkansas rivers embraced within the limits of seventeen specified Townships of land, ceded, conveyed, and relinquished to the United States.” § 12, 27 Stat. at 644. Further, Congress declared these newly acquired lands to be”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. Murphy v. Royal