Murphy v. Royal’s Empirical Analysis
875 F.3d 896 · 2017
Citation profile
1 federal appellate · 5 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 12 U.S.C. § 4702 · 16 U.S.C. § 1722 · 18 U.S.C. § 1151 (Indian Crimes Act of 1976) · 18 U.S.C. § 1153 · 18 U.S.C. § 1154 · 18 U.S.C. § 1162 · 18 U.S.C. § 3242 · 25 U.S.C. § 1321
Relies on Strickland v. Washington · Miller-El v. Cockrell Director Texas Department of Criminal Justice Institutional Division · Williams v. Taylor · Teague v. Lane · Atkins v. Virginia
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 15 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“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.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. McGirt v. Oklahoma“AEDPA concerns federal court deference to the decisions of state courts. Our review of the federal district court's application of AEDPA is de novo.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissente.g. Underwood v. Royal“all Indian allotments, the Indian titles to which have not been extinguished, including rights-of-way running through the same.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.