Indigenous, Indian, and Aboriginal Law Commons^™

Sustaining Geographies Of Hope: Cultural Resources On Public Lands, Sandra B. Zellmer

Faculty Law Review Articles

No abstract provided.

No Runner V. Calf Looking, 01-Ap-25 (Blkft. Tr. Ct. App., Oct. 11, 2001), Blackfeet Appellate Court

Court Decisions

In the Blackfeet Tribal Court of Appeals, the Court considered whether the trial court judge erred by holding a hearing without the natural father being present and granting custody to the natural mother allowing her to leave the jurisdiction of the Court. The Court found that the lower court erred in granting custody of a child to the mother, given un-explored allegations of abuse by the mother, and after the clerks failed to properly deliver service for notice of the hearing to the natural father. The father’s due process rights were violated and this case is remanded for a new …

In Re Gilroy V. Young Running Crane, Et Al., 2001-Ap-06 (Blkft. Tr. Ct. App., April 4, 2001), Blackfeet Appellate Court

Court Decisions

In the Blackfeet Tribal Court of Appeals, the Court denied petitioners Writ of Habeas Corpus because the full remedy of the lower court process has not been fully exercised and can be reached in a reasonable time frame. The Court urged Blackfeet Family Services to expedite the process to assure a family reunification hearing is held as soon as possible.

In Re Gilroy V. Young Running Crane, Et Al., 2001-Ap-06 (Blkft. Tr. Ct. App., April 4, 2001), Blackfeet Appellate Court

Court Decisions

In the Blackfeet Tribal Court of Appeals, the Court denied petitioners Writ of Habeas Corpus because the full remedy of the lower court process has not been fully exercised and can be reached in a reasonable time frame. The Court urged Blackfeet Family Services to expedite the process to assure a family reunification hearing is held as soon as possible.

Tribe V. Augare, 20-C-2057-2058 (Blkft. Tr. Ct App., Feb. 22, 2001), Blackfeet Appellate Court

Court Decisions

In the Blackfeet Tribal Court of Appeals, the Court denied a petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus, deciding that the Defendant’s Due Process Rights have not been violated. The Defendant is detained in the Cut Bank jail for his own protection due to his past record of escape and outstanding charges. Defendants arrest complied with state procedures concerning Blackfeet Tribal Warrants. The Court ruled that defendant's detainment is not unlawful.

Tribe V. Sharp, 20-Ap-18 (Blkft. Tr. Ct. App., Sept. 5, 2000), Blackfeet Appellate Court

Court Decisions

In the Court of Appeals, the Court ruled that “the policy and procedure manual for the Blackfeet Alternative Court which allows fines and incarceration of defendants was not duly approved by the Blackfeet Tribal Business Council and is not a valid document.”

Tribe V. Old Chief, 2000-Ap-20 (Blkft. Tr. Ct. App., August 29, 2000), Blackfeet Appellate Court

Court Decisions

In the Blackfeet Tribal Court of Appeals, the Court held that the Defendant shall be allowed to withdraw her guilty plea and the trial court shall continue proceedings upon the entering of a new plea. The Defendant in this case because a participant in the Blackfeet Alternative Court after pleading guilty to five criminal charges of child endangerment. Further, the Defendant was expelled from the alternative court without reason or order to incarcerate her. The Court of Appeals ruled in Tribe v. Sharp, that “the policy and procedure manual for the Blackfeet Alternative Court which allows fines and incarceration of …

Blackfeet Housing V. Larson, Blackfeet Appellate Court

Court Decisions

In the Blackfeet Tribal Court of Appeals concerning an Order for Eviction from tribal housing, the Court dismissed an appeal because the appellant failed to perfect her appeal or answer the Motion to Dismiss Appeal filed by Tribal Housing. The Court dismissed the appeal pursuant to tribal ordinance Ch. 11, Sec. 31.

Henderson V. Blackfeet Indian Housing Authority, Et. Al., 98-Ca-561 (Blkft. Tr. Ct. App., May 4, 2000), Blackfeet Appellate Court

Court Decisions

• In the Blackfeet Tribal Court of Appeals, the Court considered: (1) whether the Blackfeet Indian Housing Authority violated the plaintiff’s civil rights as guaranteed pursuant to the Indian Civil Rights Act by conducting a one-time drug test and terminating employee for failure to submit to the test, and (2) whether the Blackfeet Tribal Court has jurisdiction over the Blackfeet Indian housing Authority. 

• The Court concluded both that the Plaintiff’s civil rights were violated and the Court does have jurisdiction over the Blackfeet Indian Housing Authority. 

• The Blackfeet Indian Housing Authority is a public entity and any drug testing requirements for …

  ---

  Go to article

Conserving Ecosystems Through The Secretarial Order On Tribal Rights, Sandra B. Zellmer

Faculty Law Review Articles

No abstract provided.

Tribes As Rich Nations, Raymond Cross

Faculty Law Review Articles

This article critiques the contemporary doctrine of Indian tribal self-determination thirty years after its inception in President Richard M. Nixon's famed 1970 Indian Message to Congress.

The first part focuses on the three most prominent strategies for tribal self-determination: 1) tribal strategy that seeks to "morph" their inherent and reserved sovereign powers into tribal regulatory powers that are effective throughout Indian Country; 2) tribal strategy that seeks to develop and assert economic sovereignty over their lands, resources, and commercial relationships as a means of revitalizing Indian Country; and 3) tribal strategy that seeks to reassert traditional cultural and religious beliefs …

In Re Dll, 98-P-03 (Blkft. Tr. Ct., Aug. 30, 1999), Blackfeet Tribal Court

Court Decisions

In the Blackfeet Tribal Court, in a Probate matter, the Court considered whether it could defer to federal administrative probate law when it makes a paternity determination in Tribal Court. The Court noted that Federal Administrative Tribunals determine heirs to determine the beneficial ownership of trust land, not for purposes of tribal enrollment. See Estate of Duke Hawley Tsoodle, Sr., 32 IBIA 108 (March 23, 1988) IBIA 97-91, 97-94. Federal disposal of land does not implicate public fisc or other benefits of tribal membership. Conversely, a federal tribunal may not use the same procedures a tribal court would when the …

American Indian Education: The Terror Of History And The Nation's Debt To The Indian Peoples, Raymond Cross

Faculty Law Review Articles

In this article the author explains the origin of some of the deeply embedded historic, cultural and legal biases that have long frustrated attempts to reform American Indian education and suggests some strategies for mitigating, if not eliminating, their influence on Indian education.

Indian Lands As Critical Habitat For Indian Nations And Endangered Species: Tribal Survival And Sovereignty Come First, Sandra B. Zellmer

Faculty Law Review Articles

No abstract provided.

Sovereign Bargains, Indian Takings, And The Preservation Of Indian Country In The Twenty-First Century, Raymond Cross

Faculty Law Review Articles

This article develops a modern Indians taking doctrine by critically examining the unfolding of Marshall's Indian bargaining model through three distinct eras: 1) Chief Justice Marshall's construction of the Indian bargaining model as an American adaptation of the European doctrine of discovery; 2) the Supreme Court's subsequent reformulation of that model as the Indian plenary power doctrine; and 3) the Court's failed reconciliation of the Indian plenary power doctrine with the just compensation command of the Constitution.

A sketch of such a doctrine is provided by a case study of the 1949 taking of the Fort Berthold Indian Reservation, a …

In Re Jlw, A Minor Child, 93-Cs-01 (Blkft. Tr. Ct. App., Sept. 30, 1997), Blackfeet Appellate Court

Court Decisions

In the Blackfeet Tribal Court of Appeals, the Court dismissed an appeal because all parties failed to show up, even after being served.

Deboo V. Sinclair, 91-J-16 (Blkft. Tr. Ct. App., Sept. 18, 1997), Blackfeet Appellate Court

Court Decisions

In the Blackfeet Tribal Court of Appeals, the Court ordered the lower court to clarify how it came to its decision regarding the custody of minor children. The Court clarified that child custody determinations are left to the determination of the trial court in determining what is in the “best interests of the children.”

Tribe V. Goss, 96-Ca-2228 (Blkft. Tr. Ct. App., June 25, 1997), Blackfeet Appellate Court

Court Decisions

In the Blackfeet Tribal Court of Appeals, the Court noted that the Blackfeet Tribal Law and Order Code, Ch. 8, Sec. 3 and the Indian Civil Rights Act are violated when a defendant is tried in absentia, until such time as the Law and Order Code is amended to allow a trial without the defendant present.

In Re Est. Of Dauphinais Bird, 97-P-03 (Blkft. Tr. Ct. App., 1997), Blackfeet Appellate Court

Court Decisions

• Decedent passed away without having an established will. Darrell W. Bird filed an application for informal appointment as personal representative, and soon after decedents mother, father, and her stepfather also filed to be personal representative.  

• All applicants and their counsel met for a hearing, under which the Court heard testimony and took evidence. At its end, the Tribal Court ordered the appointment of Darrell W. Bird and Jame B. Dauphinais, decedents father, as co-personal representatives.  

• Decedent’s mother, Ramona Jackson, appealed the order while the father and stepfather did not. The father did file an amicus brief after the expired time …

  ---

  Go to article

Blackfeet Indian Tribe, Et Al. V. Lodgebuilder Mngmt. Inc., 95-Ca-417 (Blkft. Tr. Ct., Feb. 28, 1996), Blackfeet Tribal Court

Court Decisions

• In the Blackfeet Tribal Court, the court determined whether a defendant, Lodgebuilder, must provide the tribe with a warranty deed, pursuant to their agreement, despite the lack of cooperation from the tribe to comply with the Montana Subdivision and Platting Act.  

• The Court determined that the Act is the law of the State of Montana, not the Blackfeet Indian reservation. Lodgebuilder is a Blackfeet chartered business, and the president of Lodgebuilder is an enrolled member, doing business on the reservation. Therefore, the Tribal Court has exclusive jurisdiction over this action. Williams v. Lee, 358 U.S. 217 (1959), Fisher v. Dist. …

  ---

  Go to article

In Re Tpg, A Minor Child, 95-Cs-02 (Blkft. Tr. Ct. App., Feb. 22, 1996), Blackfeet Appellate Court

Court Decisions

In the Blackfeet Tribal Court of Appeals, the Court clarified that Common Law has been established for use in domestic matters. The Blackfeet Law and Order Code, Ch. 2, Sec. 2, does not bind the Tribe to State Law.

Sollars V. Mattson And Montana Dept. Of Hwys, [Omitted], (Blkft. Tr. Ct. App., Dec. 20, 1995), Blackfeet Appellate Court

Court Decisions

In the Blackfeet Tribal Court of Appeals, the Court affirmed a lower Court ruling of an interlocutory appeal after the Blackfeet Trial Court determined that the Tribal Court has jurisdiction over the State of Montana. The State asserted sovereign immunity as a barrier from suit by the Tribe but that argument was rebuffed by the Court via Gilham et al. v. State of Montana, et al., 90-AP-23 (Blkft. Tr. Ct. App., Nov. 22, 1994).

In Re Whitegrass Children, 95-Ap-12 (Blkft. Tr. Ct. App., July 17, 1995), Blackfeet Appellate Court

Court Decisions

• In the Blackfeet Tribal Court of Appeals, the Court considered whether: 

• A case is appealable; 

• What constitutes proper service; 

• A pleading is sufficient to warrant removal and immediate hearing; 

• The evidence is sufficient to substantiate separation of children; and 

• Necessity of written opinion in explanation 

• The Court determined that: 

• When due process and the rights of minor children are in jeopardy of being violated, the Court will intervene and accept the appeal; 

• The Blackfeet Law and order Code, Ch. 9, Rule 12, Sec. D-1 specifies that service of process shall be made valid upon an individual sixteen years of age …

  ---

  Go to article

D.M. Gray Co, Inc., V. Deroche D/B/A Starr Construction, 94-Ap-25 (Blkft. Tr. Ct. App., March 6, 1995), Blackfeet Appellate Court

Court Decisions

• In the Blackfeet Tribal Court of Appeals the Court reversed and remanded a case for improper service when service was improperly made to a minor. Ch. 9, Rule 12: Service of Process, states that service may be made “upon an individual other than a minor under the age of sixteen, or an incompetent person, by delivering a copy of the summons or notice of action, and give the complaint to him personally, or by leaving copies thereof where he lives with an adult living there, or by delivering a copy of the summons or notice of action and of the …

  ---

  Go to article

D.M. Gray Co, Inc., V. Deroche D/B/A Starr Construction, 94-Ap-25 (Blkft. Tr. Ct. App., March 6, 1995), Blackfeet Appellate Court

Court Decisions

In the Blackfeet Tribal Court of Appeals the Court reversed and remanded case for improper service when service was improperly made to a minor. Ch. 9, Rule 12: Service of Process, states that service may be made “upon an individual other than a minor under the age of sixteen, or an incompetent person, by delivering a copy of the summons or notice of action, and give the complaint to him personally, or by leaving copies thereof where he lives with an adult living there, or by delivering a copy of the summons or notice of action and of the complaint …

Tribe V. Bird, 94-Ap-14 (Blkft. Tr. Ct. App., Dec., 10, 1994), Blackfeet Appellate Court

Court Decisions

In the Blackfeet Tribal Court of Appeals, the Court reprimanded a defendant who exhibited inappropriate behavior towards a Judge when he did not have a proper mental state during arraignment. His negative mental state was supported by a report from a doctor-psychologist at IHS. While the prosecution and the Court dismissed three total contempt charges, the Court further ordered the defendant to apologize to the lower court judge for his actions towards her.

In Re Vtwm And Other Similarly Situated Youth, 94-Ap-24 (Blkft. Tr. Ct. App., Oct. 27, 1994), Blackfeet Appellate Court

Court Decisions

In the Blackfeet Tribal Court of Appeals, the Court granted a Writ of Habeas Corpus, on behalf of several incarcerated youth. The Court reasoned that resolution 254-93 did not repeal Ch. 7 of the Blackfeet Law and Order Code nor did the resolution enact a new Juvenile Code as law. Under the then Juvenile Code, detention of juveniles beyond their initial order of detainment, without a properly filed petition for further detainment, was unlawful. The Juveniles rights were violated by not holding a hearing each time detention order was granted.

In Re Vtwm And Other Similarly Situated Youth, 94-Ap-24 (Blkft. Tr. Ct. App., Oct. 27, 1994), Blackfeet Appellate Court

Court Decisions

In the Blackfeet Tribal Court of Appeals, the Court granted a Writ of Habeas Corpus, on behalf of several incarcerated youth. The Court reasoned that resolution 254-93 did not repeal Ch. 7 of the Blackfeet Law and Order Code nor did the resolution enact a new Juvenile Code as law. Under the then Juvenile Code, detention of juveniles beyond their initial order of detainment, without a properly filed petition for further detainment, was unlawful. The Juveniles rights were violated by not holding a hearing each time detention order was granted.

Blackfeet Indian Housing Authority V. Augare, 93-Ap-22 (Blkft. Tr. Ct. App., July 12, 1994), Blackfeet Appellate Court

Court Decisions

In the Blackfeet Tribal court of Appeals, the Court denied a motion, by the Respondent Blackfeet Indian Housing Authority to dismiss a claim, because the Appellant Augare did not have the statutorily prescribed time available to respond prior to the Tribe’s motion to dismiss.

Wilson V. Marchington, Et Al., 93-Bsc-02 (Blkft. Sup. Ct., July 1, 1994), Blackfeet Appellate Court

Court Decisions

In an appeal to the Blackfeet Supreme Court, the Court partially affirmed a decision of the Blackfeet Court of Appeals, holding for the plaintiff, except on the issues of: Issue 1) whether the trial court’s having allowed testimony as to the economic loss of a non-party, plaintiff’s husband, was in error [defendant’s specification of error 2]; Issue 2) whether the trial court’s having allowed the jury to take a “damage chart” into the jury room during its deliberations was error [defendant’s specification of error 7]; and Issue 3) whether plaintiff’s attorney’s reference to punitive damages in closing argument was error …