Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
16 Oklahoma opinions name it 2 courts 1966–2025 11 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Oklahoma courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Oklahoma v. Castro-Huertagreen2 sentences2024Castro-Huerta , 597 U.S. at 655 (states have concurrent jurisdiction with federal government over non-Indian that commits a crime against an Indian victim in Indian country); United States v. McBratney , 104 U.S. 621, 622-24 (1881) (enabling act states has jurisdiction over non-Indian defendants committing crimes against non-Indian victims in Indian country); People of State of New York ex rel. 2023Cf. Castro-Huerta , 142 S. Ct. at 2501 (recognizing that the only parties to the state criminal prosecution in Castro-Huerta were the State and the non-Indian defendant). | 3 | 4 |
White Mountain Apache Tribe v. Brackergreen2 sentences2023After finding that state jurisdiction was not pre-empted by federal law (in the case of a non-Indian defendant and an Indian victim in Indian country), the court utilized the analysis found in White Mountain Apache Tribe v. Bracker , 448 U.S. 136, 142-43 (1980), to determine whether "the exercise of state jurisdiction would unlawfully infringe upon tribal self-government." Id. , 142 S.Ct. at 2501 . 2023After finding that state jurisdiction was not pre-empted by federal law (in the case of a non-Indian defendant and an Indian victim in Indian country), the court utilized the analysis found in White Mountain Apache Tribe v. Bracker , 448 U.S. 136, 142-43 (1980), to determine whether "the exercise of state jurisdiction would unlawfully infringe upon tribal self-government." Id. , 142 S.Ct. at 2501 . | 3 | 4 |
United States v. McBratneygreen2 sentences2024Castro-Huerta , 597 U.S. at 655 (states have concurrent jurisdiction with federal government over non-Indian that commits a crime against an Indian victim in Indian country); United States v. McBratney , 104 U.S. 621, 622-24 (1881) (enabling act states has jurisdiction over non-Indian defendants committing crimes against non-Indian victims in Indian country); People of State of New York ex rel. 2024Castro-Huerta , 597 U.S. at 655 (states have concurrent jurisdiction with federal government over non-Indian that commits a crime against an Indian victim in Indian country); United States v. McBratney , 104 U.S. 621, 622-24 (1881) (enabling act states has jurisdiction over non-Indian defendants committing crimes against non-Indian victims in Indian country); People of State of New York ex rel. | 1 | 1 |
New York Ex Rel. Ray v. Martingreen2 sentences2024Ray v. Martin , 326 U.S. 496, 499 (1946) (original states without enabling act also have jurisdiction over non-Indian defendants committing crimes against non-Indian victims in Indian country). ¶18 Conversely, the tribes have no criminal jurisdiction over non-Indians without Congressional grant or recognition of authority. 2024Ray v. Martin , 326 U.S. 496, 499 (1946) (original states without enabling act also have jurisdiction over non-Indian defendants committing crimes against non-Indian victims in Indian country). ¶18 Conversely, the tribes have no criminal jurisdiction over non-Indians without Congressional grant or recognition of authority. | 1 | 1 |
Mescalero Apache Tribe v. Jonesgreen1 sentence2024Castro-Huerta itself dispelled this assertion with its holding that Oklahoma has concurrent jurisdiction in Indian country where non-Indian defendants perpetrate general crimes against Indian victims. "[E]ven on reservations, state laws may be applied unless such application would interfere with reservation self-government or would impair a right granted or reserved by federal law." Mescalero Apache Tribe v. Jones , 411 U.S. 145, 148 (1973). 7. | 1 | 1 |
Oliphant v. Suquamish Indian Tribered2 sentences2024Id. at 650 ; see also Oliphant v. Suquamish Tribe , 435 U.S. 191, 195 (1978). 2024Oliphant , 435 U.S. at 212 (Indian tribal courts do not have criminal jurisdiction to try and punish non-Indian defendants absent Congressional grant or recognition of authority); 25 U.S.C. § 1304 (b) and (c) (recognizing tribal concurrent jurisdiction with federal and state governments over non-Indians committing covered crimes, with certain exceptions, in Indian country). ¶19 The third consideration in criminal jurisdiction cases is tribal membership. | 1 | 1 |
Ute Indian Tribe of Uintah & Ouray Reservation v. Mytongreen1 sentence2023The majority today conjures no credible authority for its contrary position; and yet seems undeterred by a "considerable and uniform body of authority stacked against it." Id.; see also Ute Indian Tribe v. Myton, 832 F. 3d 1220 (10th Cir. 2016)(noting, with obvious irritation, the State of Utah's relentless campaign to prosecute tribal members for crimes committed on lands clearly recognized as Indian Country in prior cases). ¶6 Oklahoma will have jurisdiction (or sovereign authority , if you like) to prosecute Indians in Indian Country when Congress has granted that authority by statute, and | 1 | 1 |
Ute Indian Tribe of the Uintah & Ouray Reservation v. Utahgreen1 sentence2023The holding in Castro-Huerta plainly has no application to Indian defendants in Indian Country. ¶3 "[U]nless Congress provides an exception to the rule--and it hasn't here--states possess 'no authority' to prosecute Indians for offenses in Indian country." Ute Indian Tribe v. Utah (Ute VI) , 790 F.3d 1000, 1004 (10th Cir. 2015)( quoting Cheyenne-Arapaho Tribes v. Oklahoma, 618 F.2d 665, 668 )(10th Cir. 1980)(finding unauthorized state prosecutions of Indians in Indian Country would cause irreparable injury to tribal sovereignty); see also , 18 U.S.C. § 1162 (allowing some states, but not Oklah | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Cuchgreen2 sentences2021The question resolved in Hagen was simply " where these Indian defendants should have been tried for committing major crimes." 79 F.3d at 992 (emphasis in original). 2021The question resolved in Hagen was simply " where these Indian defendants should have been tried for committing major crimes." 79 F.3d at 992 (emphasis in original). | 1 | 1 |
ROTH v. STATEgreen2 sentences2021See Roth , 2021 OK CR 27, ¶¶ 2-3. 2021See Roth , 2021 OK CR 27, ¶¶ 2-3 . | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Oklahoma. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
United States v. Mazurie
green
2 sentences1979Looking at other cases which deal with the definition of Indian country, we find in United States v. Martine, 442 F.2d 1022 (10th Cir.1971), that the Court looked at "the nature of the area in question, the relationship of the inhabitants of the area to Indian Tribes and to the federal government, and the established practice of government agencies toward the area...." In United States v. Mazurie, 419 U.S. 544 , 95 S.Ct. 710 , 42 L.Ed.2d 706 (1975), the Court found that a bar operated by non-Indian defendants on non-Indian land on the outskirts of an unincorporated village within an Indian res 1979Looking at other cases which deal with the definition of Indian country, we find in United States v. Martine, 442 F.2d 1022 (10th Cir.1971), that the Court looked at "the nature of the area in question, the relationship of the inhabitants of the area to Indian Tribes and to the federal government, and the established practice of government agencies toward the area...." In United States v. Mazurie, 419 U.S. 544 , 95 S.Ct. 710 , 42 L.Ed.2d 706 (1975), the Court found that a bar operated by non-Indian defendants on non-Indian land on the outskirts of an unincorporated village within an Indian res | 2 | 1979–1979 |
CITY OF TULSA v. O'BRIEN
neutral
2 sentences2025Id. , 2024 OK CR 31 Bracker balancing, this Court found that Oklahoma has concurrent criminal jurisdiction in Indian country over non-member Indian defendants accused of committing non-major crimes. 2025Id. , 2024 OK CR 31 Bracker balancing, this Court found that Oklahoma has concurrent criminal jurisdiction in Indian country over non-member Indian defendants accused of committing non-major crimes. | 1 | 2025–2025 |
HOGNER v. STATE
green
2 sentences2023Faced with Petitioner's motion to dismiss in district court backed by prima facie evidence as to his legal status as an Indian and the location of the crime on the Creek reservation, see Hogner v. State , 2021 OK CR 4, ¶ 4 , 500 P.3d 629, 631 , the State--not the defendant--had the burden of demonstrating that the principals of tribal self-government do not preempt state jurisdiction and that this case is one of the exceptional circumstances in which it may assert jurisdiction over tribal members on the reservation. ¶14 Moreover, it is absurd to suggest that Petitioner was required to address 2023Faced with Petitioner's motion to dismiss in district court backed by prima facie evidence as to his legal status as an Indian and the location of the crime on the Creek reservation, see Hogner v. State , 2021 OK CR 4, ¶ 4 , 500 P.3d 629, 631 , the State--not the defendant--had the burden of demonstrating that the principals of tribal self-government do not preempt state jurisdiction and that this case is one of the exceptional circumstances in which it may assert jurisdiction over tribal members on the reservation. ¶14 Moreover, it is absurd to suggest that Petitioner was required to address | 1 | 2023–2023 |
MCCLAIN v. STATE
green
2 sentences2023McClain v. State , 2021 OK CR 38 , 501 P.3d 1009 (reversing and remanding with instructions to dismiss rape and lewd acts convictions against Indian defendant for crimes in Indian Country). ¶5 Petitioner has the same clear legal right to dismissal of this pending state prosecution, because "it's long since settled that a state and its subdivisions generally lack authority to prosecute Indians for criminal offenses arising in Indian country." Ute Indian Tribe , 790 P.3d at 1006 (emphasis added). 2023McClain v. State , 2021 OK CR 38 , 501 P.3d 1009 (reversing and remanding with instructions to dismiss rape and lewd acts convictions against Indian defendant for crimes in Indian Country). ¶5 Petitioner has the same clear legal right to dismissal of this pending state prosecution, because "it's long since settled that a state and its subdivisions generally lack authority to prosecute Indians for criminal offenses arising in Indian country." Ute Indian Tribe , 790 P.3d at 1006 (emphasis added). | 1 | 2023–2023 |
Cheyenne-Arapaho Tribes of Oklahoma v. The State of Oklahoma
green
1 sentence2023The holding in Castro-Huerta plainly has no application to Indian defendants in Indian Country. ¶3 "[U]nless Congress provides an exception to the rule--and it hasn't here--states possess 'no authority' to prosecute Indians for offenses in Indian country." Ute Indian Tribe v. Utah (Ute VI) , 790 F.3d 1000, 1004 (10th Cir. 2015)( quoting Cheyenne-Arapaho Tribes v. Oklahoma, 618 F.2d 665, 668 )(10th Cir. 1980)(finding unauthorized state prosecutions of Indians in Indian Country would cause irreparable injury to tribal sovereignty); see also , 18 U.S.C. § 1162 (allowing some states, but not Oklah | 1 | 2023–2023 |
Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Environment
green
1 sentence2023Id. at 1158 . | 1 | 2023–2023 |
Bouie v. City of Columbia
green
1 sentence2022Matloff, , ¶¶ 8, 27, 497 P.3d at 689, 692. ¶16 Bouie v. City of Columbia , 378 U.S. 347 (1964) stands for the proposition that the retroactive application of a judicial decision can violate due process in the same way as an ex post facto law made by the Legislature. | 1 | 2022–2022 |
Richardson v. Malone
green
2 sentences1994In Richardson v. Malone, 762 F.Supp. 1463 (N.D.Okla.1991), the federal district court held that it had jurisdiction over a foreclosure action against Indian defendants involving property located in Indian country. 1994In Richardson v. Malone, 762 F. Supp. 1463 (N.D.Okla. 1991), the federal district court held that it had jurisdiction over a foreclosure action against Indian defendants involving property located in Indian country. | 1 | 1994–1994 |
State Securities, Inc. v. Anderson
green
2 sentences1981In State Securities, Inc. v. Anderson, 84 N.M. 629 , 506 P.2d 786 (N.M.1973), relied upon by respondent and cited by the Montana Supreme Court in Bad Horse , the New Mexico Supreme Court determined that its state courts could obtain jurisdiction over an Indian residing on an Indian reservation by issuing process upon the Indian while he was on the reservation. 1981In State Securities, Inc. v. Anderson, 84 N.M. 629 , 506 P.2d 786 (N.M.1973), relied upon by respondent and cited by the Montana Supreme Court in Bad Horse , the New Mexico Supreme Court determined that its state courts could obtain jurisdiction over an Indian residing on an Indian reservation by issuing process upon the Indian while he was on the reservation. | 1 | 1981–1981 |
United States v. Gilbert George Martine
green
1 sentence1979Looking at other cases which deal with the definition of Indian country, we find in United States v. Martine, 442 F.2d 1022 (10th Cir.1971), that the Court looked at "the nature of the area in question, the relationship of the inhabitants of the area to Indian Tribes and to the federal government, and the established practice of government agencies toward the area...." In United States v. Mazurie, 419 U.S. 544 , 95 S.Ct. 710 , 42 L.Ed.2d 706 (1975), the Court found that a bar operated by non-Indian defendants on non-Indian land on the outskirts of an unincorporated village within an Indian res | 1 | 1979–1979 |
Smith v. Winston
neutral
2 sentences1966Smith v. Winston [ 67 Okl. 133 ], 170 P. 503 ; Dolezal v. Bostick, 41 Okl. 743 , 139 Pac. 964 . 1966Smith v. Winston [ 67 Okl. 133 ], 170 P. 503 ; Dolezal v. Bostick, 41 Okl. 743 , 139 Pac. 964 . | 1 | 1966–1966 |
Dolezal v. Bostick
green
2 sentences1966Smith v. Winston [ 67 Okl. 133 ], 170 P. 503 ; Dolezal v. Bostick, 41 Okl. 743 , 139 Pac. 964 . 1966Smith v. Winston [ 67 Okl. 133 ], 170 P. 503 ; Dolezal v. Bostick, 41 Okl. 743 , 139 Pac. 964 . | 1 | 1966–1966 |
Mires v. Hogan
green
2 sentences1966This Court said: “Where Indian’s claim against the state for recovery of taxes which had been illegally levied was barred by limitations, the Legislature was thereafter without power to waive the limitations in view of the constitutional provision that the Legislature shall have no power to revive any right or remedy which may have become barred by lapse of time or by any statute of the state.” In Mires v. Hogan, 79 Okl. 233 , 192 P. 811 , this Court said: “Section 52 of article 5 of Williams’ Oklahoma Constitution provides that the ‘Legislature shall have no power to re vive any right or reme 1966This Court said: “Where Indian’s claim against the state for recovery of taxes which had been illegally levied was barred by limitations, the Legislature was thereafter without power to waive the limitations in view of the constitutional provision that the Legislature shall have no power to revive any right or remedy which may have become barred by lapse of time or by any statute of the state.” In Mires v. Hogan, 79 Okl. 233 , 192 P. 811 , this Court said: “Section 52 of article 5 of Williams’ Oklahoma Constitution provides that the ‘Legislature shall have no power to re vive any right or reme | 1 | 1966–1966 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.