Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Discipline
-
- Administrative Law (5)
- Indigenous, Indian, and Aboriginal Law (5)
- Natural Resources Law (5)
- Civil Procedure (4)
- Energy and Utilities Law (4)
-
- Environmental Law (4)
- Supreme Court of the United States (4)
- Water Law (4)
- Common Law (3)
- Courts (3)
- Government Contracts (3)
- Land Use Law (3)
- Legal Remedies (3)
- Oil, Gas, and Mineral Law (3)
- President/Executive Department (3)
- State and Local Government Law (3)
- Agency (2)
- Constitutional Law (2)
- Contracts (2)
- Criminal Law (2)
- Law and Race (2)
- Law and Society (2)
- Legal Writing and Research (2)
- Legislation (2)
- Property Law and Real Estate (2)
- Agriculture Law (1)
- Business Organizations Law (1)
- Civil Law (1)
- Keyword
-
- Tribe (3)
- EPA (2)
- Adjudicatory jurisdiction (1)
- And welfare of a tribe (1)
- Annual fee (1)
-
- Army Corps of Engineers (1)
- BLM (1)
- Beneficial interest (1)
- Bennett v. Spear (1)
- Bureau of Land Management (1)
- CERCLA (1)
- California (1)
- Catastrophic (1)
- Clean Water Act (1)
- Clean-up permit (1)
- Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liabilities Act (1)
- Consent (1)
- Consent decree (1)
- Containment program (1)
- Declaratory judgement (1)
- Department of Defense (1)
- District court (1)
- Dolgencorp (1)
- Dollar General (1)
- Due process (1)
- Economic security (1)
- En banc petition (1)
- Environmental Protection Agency (1)
- Exclusive jurisdiction (1)
- Existential threat to the health (1)
- Publication
- Publication Type
Articles 1 - 13 of 13
Full-Text Articles in Jurisdiction
Fmc Corp. V. Shoshone-Bannock Tribes, Seth T. Bonilla
Fmc Corp. V. Shoshone-Bannock Tribes, Seth T. Bonilla
Public Land & Resources Law Review
In 1998, FMC Corporation agreed to submit to the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes’ permitting processes, including the payment of fees, for clean-up work required as part of consent decree negotiations with the Environmental Protection Agency. Then, in 2002, FMC refused to pay the Tribes under a permitting agreement entered into by both parties, even though the company continued to store hazardous waste on land within the Shoshone-Bannock Fort Hall Reservation in Idaho. FMC challenged the Tribes’ authority to enforce the $1.5 million permitting fees first in tribal court and later challenged the Tribes’ authority to exercise civil regulatory and adjudicatory jurisdiction over …
Waiving Federal Sovereign Immunity In Original Actions Between States, Sandra B. Zellmer
Waiving Federal Sovereign Immunity In Original Actions Between States, Sandra B. Zellmer
Faculty Law Review Articles
There are tremendous disparities between high stakes original actions between states before the US. Supreme Court, where there is no waiver of federal sovereign immunity, and other types of cases in the lower courts, where a plethora of immunity waivers allow states and other parties to seek relief from the federal government for Fifth Amendment takings, unlawful agency action, and tort claims. Federal actions or omissions are often at the heart of the dispute, and federal involvement may be crucial for purposes of providing an equitable remedy to the state parties, but there is no reliable mechanism for bringing the …
Upper Skagit Indian Tribe V. Lundgren, Brett Berntsen
Upper Skagit Indian Tribe V. Lundgren, Brett Berntsen
Public Land & Resources Law Review
Stemming from a property dispute between a private landowner and the Upper Skagit Indian Tribe, this action evolved into a debate concerning the scope of tribal sovereign immunity and whether Indian tribes should be bound by certain common law doctrines applicable to most other sovereigns. The Washington Supreme Court originally ruled against the Tribe, citing County of Yakima v. Confederated Tribes and Bands of Yakima Nation in holding that sovereign immunity does not apply to in rem actions. The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari to clarify that its ruling in Yakima did not support such a proposition. The case …
National Association Of Manufacturers V. Department Of Defense, Summer L. Carmack
National Association Of Manufacturers V. Department Of Defense, Summer L. Carmack
Public Land & Resources Law Review
In an attempt to provide consistency to the interpretation and application of the statutory phrase “waters of the United States,” as used in the Clean Water Act, the EPA and Army Corps of Engineers together passed the WOTUS Rule. Unfortunately, the Rule has created more confusion than clarity, resulting in a number of lawsuits challenging substantive portions of the Rule’s language. National Association of Manufacturers v. Department of Defense did not address those substantive challenges, but instead determined whether those claims challenging the Rule must be filed in federal district courts or federal courts of appeals. In its decision, the …
Devil Take The Hindmost: Reform Considerations For States With A Constitutional Right To Bail, Jordan Gross
Devil Take The Hindmost: Reform Considerations For States With A Constitutional Right To Bail, Jordan Gross
Faculty Law Review Articles
This Article submits that any meaningful discussion of bail reform at the state level must be jurisdiction-specific, and it must account for the practical, historical, and philosophical aspects of the state constitutional right to bailability. Part II of this Article is an overview of the origins and history of English and American bail law. Part III describes the role and regulation of commercial bail bonding in the United States. Part IV traces the history and current state of bail reform in the United States. Part V considers legal and practical barriers to reform unique to right-to-bail states, particularly jurisdictions without …
United States V. Osage Wind, Llc, Summer Carmack
United States V. Osage Wind, Llc, Summer Carmack
Public Land & Resources Law Review
The Osage Nation, as owner of the beneficial interest in its mineral estate, issues federally-approved leases to persons and entities who wish to conduct mineral development on its lands. After an energy-development company, Osage Wind, leased privately-owned surface lands within Tribal reservation boundaries and began to excavate minerals for purposes of constructing a wind farm, the United States brought suit on the Tribe’s behalf. In the ensuing litigation, the Osage Nation insisted that Osage Wind should have obtained a mineral lease from the Tribe before beginning its work. In its decision, the Tenth Circuit applied one of the Indian law …
Milky Whey, Inc. V. Dairy Partners, Llc: Transacting Business Under Montana’S Long-Arm Statute To The Full Constitutional Limit, Victoria Dettman
Milky Whey, Inc. V. Dairy Partners, Llc: Transacting Business Under Montana’S Long-Arm Statute To The Full Constitutional Limit, Victoria Dettman
Montana Law Review
Milky Whey, Inc. v. Dairy Partners, LLC: Transacting Business Under Montana’s Long-Arm Statute to the Full Constitutional Limit
Pit River Tribe V. Bureau Of Land Management, 793 F.3d 1147 (9th Cir. 2015), Kathryn S. Ore
Pit River Tribe V. Bureau Of Land Management, 793 F.3d 1147 (9th Cir. 2015), Kathryn S. Ore
Public Land & Resources Law Review
In Pit River Tribe v. Bureau of Land Management, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit explained the correct application of the zone of interests test and further solidified the importance of proper NEPA and NHPA analysis in geothermal leasing. The court reaffirmed that the BLM and the Forest Service must conduct additional cultural and environmental analysis when granting lease extensions under the Geothermal Steam Act. Furthermore, it rejected the BLM’s decision to grant forty-year lease continuations to unproven geothermal leases by treating them as a unit rather than individually.
The Upside Down Mississippi Problem: Addressing Procedural Disparity Between Federal And State Criminal Defendants In Concurrent Jurisdiction Prosecutions, Jordan Gross
Faculty Law Review Articles
State constitutional rights and procedural protections, of course, can only be asserted in state criminal prosecutions. As a result, where a defendant is prosecuted in federal court for conduct over which both a state and the federal government have criminal jurisdiction, he or she may be at a distinct disadvantage simply because of the fortuity or misfortune of having attracted the attention of federal prosecutors. And, upon conviction, a defendant will likely face a drastically harsher sentence than that which a state court would have imposed for the same conduct. The cumulative impact, therefore, of Congress's federalization, nationalization and standardization …
Extended Exposure:Advising Veterans Of Federal Criminal Jurisdiction Over In-Service Conduct, Hillary A. Wandler
Extended Exposure:Advising Veterans Of Federal Criminal Jurisdiction Over In-Service Conduct, Hillary A. Wandler
Faculty Journal Articles & Other Writings
The Military Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act of 2000 (MEJA) was primarily crafted to establish federal criminal jurisdiction over civilians employed by or accompanying the armed forces outside of the United States.9 This includes (1) civilian employees, (2) contractors and subcontractors, and (3) employees of contractors and subcontractors.10 Dependents of members of the armed forces and those “employed by the Armed Forces” also fall under the act’s jurisdiction. This article discuss various aspects of the MEJA.
Managing Interjurisdictional Waters Under The Great Lakes Charter Annex, Sandra B. Zellmer, Mark Squillace
Managing Interjurisdictional Waters Under The Great Lakes Charter Annex, Sandra B. Zellmer, Mark Squillace
Faculty Law Review Articles
No abstract provided.
The Improvement Of Water And Water-Dependent Resources Under The Great Lakes Charter Annex, Sandra B. Zellmer, David Gecas, Anne Kori Mann
The Improvement Of Water And Water-Dependent Resources Under The Great Lakes Charter Annex, Sandra B. Zellmer, David Gecas, Anne Kori Mann
Faculty Law Review Articles
No abstract provided.
Extraterritoriality Of Restrictive State Abortion Laws: States Can Abort Plans To Abort At Home But Not Abroad, Andrew King-Ries
Extraterritoriality Of Restrictive State Abortion Laws: States Can Abort Plans To Abort At Home But Not Abroad, Andrew King-Ries
Faculty Law Review Articles
The question of a state's authority to legislate abortion extraterritorially may appear largely academic because of the United States Supreme Court's holding in Roe v. Wade, in which the Court prohibited states from restricting abortions in the first trimester of pregnancy.' At first glance, the Supreme Court's recent decision in Planned Parenthood v. Casey' appears to remove further the issue of extraterritorial abortion legislation from the states because the decision purportedly reaffirmed Roe.3 The Casey decision, however, does not preclude returning the abortion issue to the states. An extremely tenuous coalition of justices reaffirmed Roe, while a united group of …