Digital Commons Network^™

The Legend Of "Crow Dog:" An Examination Of Jurisdiction Over Intra-Tribal Crimes Not Covered By The Major Crimes Act, James W. King

Vanderbilt Law Review

Native American tribes present unique problems to American jurisprudence and governance. Unquestionably subject to federal control on some levels, they have maintained the "inherent powers of a limited sovereignty" over internal affairs.' While both the Supreme Court and Congress have recognized this sovereignty, specific Congressional mandate can abrogate it at any time. This Note addresses the question of whether Congress has mandated federal jurisdiction over all serious crimes committed by Indians against other Indians on tribal land.

The story is long and complicated, with its beginnings in the 1883 Supreme Court case Ex parte Crow Dog, in which the Court …

Crow Tribe, Montana & Us Compact Of 1999, Montana

Native American Water Rights Settlement Project

Settlement & State Legislation: Water Rights Compact Entered into by the State of Montana, the Crow Tribe and the USA (Jun. 22, 1999). (Mont. Code Ann. Sec. 85-20-901) There is no separate Settlement Agreememt. The State Legislation ratifies settlement of Crow water rights. Includes 500,000 a/f/y from Bighorn River, priority of May 7, 1868; 300,000 a/f/y from Bighorn Lake storage but limited to half that amount during low periods. A stream and lake-level management plan to be developed for the Bighorn River. Tribe has surface, GW and storage rights within the Little Bighorn River, Pryor Creek, and Rosebud Creek (to …

Winner, Best Appellate Brief In The 1998-99 Native American Law Student Association Moot Court Competition, Lisa F. Cook Gambler, Melissa E. Stephenson

American Indian Law Review

No abstract provided.