Indigenous, Indian, and Aboriginal Law Commons^™

Tribe V. Mancha, No. 90-C-1355, 91-Ap-03 (Blkft. Tr. Ct. App., Aug. 29, 1991), Blackfeet Appellate Court

Court Decisions

The Court of Appeals for the Blackfeet Indian Reservation dismissed the case against the defendant because he was denied his right to a speedy trial by jury. The Court found that the standard timeframe accepted by most courts for a speedy trial is 180 days, and Mancha was brought to trial after 284 days. The Court held that this delay in the trial date violated the defendant’s rights as defined in Rule 58, Chapter 9 of the Blackfeet Law and Order Code. The Court further ordered that the trial court implement a procedure at arraignment for documenting waiver of jury …

Tribe V. Mancha, No. 90-C-1355, 91-Ap-03 (Blkft. Tr. Ct. App., Aug. 29, 1991)., Blackfeet Appellate Court

Court Decisions

The Court of Appeals for the Blackfeet Indian Reservation dismissed the case against the defendant because he was denied his right to a speedy trial by jury. The Court found that the standard timeframe accepted by most courts for a speedy trial is 180 days, and Mancha was brought to trial after 284 days. The Court held that this delay in the trial date violated the defendant’s rights as defined in Rule 58, Chapter 9 of the Blackfeet Law and Order Code. The Court further ordered that the trial court implement a procedure at arraignment for documenting waiver of jury …

Tribe V. Mancha, 91-Ap-03 (Blkft. Tr. Ct. App., Aug. 29, 1991), Blackfeet Appellate Court

Court Decisions

In the Blackfeet Tribal Court of Appeals, the Court established a 180-day presumption of prosecution in criminal cases, before a Speedy Trial evaluation can determine whether the case should be dismissed. The Court adopted the 180-day deadline, in parity with other jurisdictions. The Defendant was brought to trial 284 days after arrest. The Court notes that there is a process and procedure which must be followed to extend or delay when a case is heard. The Court implemented a procedural process for Tribal Courts to follow, noting: 1) knowledge of right to a jury trial; 2) waiver of right to …

Crow V. Guardipee, 91-Ap-08 (Blkft. Tr. Ct. App. August 29, 1991), Blackfeet Appellate Court

Court Decisions

The Blackfeet Tribal Court Appeals dismissed the appeal filed by Crow for failure to comply with procedure.

Cut Finger V. Laplant, 91-Ap-14 (Blkft. Tr. Ct. App., August 29, 1991), Blackfeet Appellate Court

Court Decisions

The Blackfeet Tribal Court of Appeals held that an advocate takes responsibility of counsel for a client, that advocate is responsible for notifying their client of any and all documentation in their case.

Hall V. Dubray, 90-Ap-09 (Blkft. Tr. Ct. App., Aug. 29, 1991), Blackfeet Appellate Court

Court Decisions

In the Blackfeet Tribal Court of Appeals, the Court remanded a case back to trial court after the natural fathers' rights were violated when the court did not pursue the procedure to terminate his parental rights. Additionally, the mother’s rights were not protected by waiving the six-month waiting period and entering a final decree of adoption.

In The Matter Of P.D.A.B., A Minor Child, 91-J-38 (Blkft. Tr. Ct. App. August 12, 1991), Blackfeet Appellate Court

Court Decisions

The Blackfeet Tribal Court of Appeals held that the matter be dismissed after all concerned parties being duly served failed to appear.

Tribe V. Sure Chief, 91-Ap-07 (Blkft. Tr. Ct. App., July 25, 1991), Blackfeet Appellate Court

Court Decisions

The Blackfeet Tribal Court of Appeals held that the motion for reconsideration was not filed in a timely manner and substantiating information was insufficient to serve as a Notice of Appeal.

Laplante V. Sun River Cattle Co., Inc., 90-Ap-19 (Blkft. Tr. Ct. App., March 7, 1991), Blackfeet Appellate Court

Court Decisions

In the Blackfeet Tribal Court of Appeals, the Court determined that a prior grant of a Motion to Dismiss, in favor of Respondent, in a contract dispute concerning a recission of the sub-lease of a grazing permit to Sun River. The Court determined that LaPlante held the valid permit for grazing, granted by the BIA, and that Sun River was a mere sub-lessee. As a matter of law, the permittee, LaPlante, is responsible for carrying out the terms of the underlying grazing leases, no the Defendant, Sun River. No Evidence indicated that Sun River would be responsible for complying with …

Tribe V. No Runner, 90-Ap-20 (Blkft. Tr. Ct. App., Oct. 1, 1990), Blackfeet Appellate Court

Court Decisions

In the Blackfeet Tribal Court of Appeals, the Court denied an appeal of a convicted Indian person. The Court reiterated that, pursuant to the Blackfeet Tribal Law and Order Code, Ch. 4, Sec. 1, “a judge can sentence a convicted Indian person to: 1) work for the tribe, 2) imprisonment and/or fine, and 3) restitution to the injured party, at the discretion of the sitting judge as to what sentence is imposed.

Galbreath V. Galbreath, 81-Ca-27 (Blkft. Ct., August 2, 1990), Blackfeet Appellate Court

Court Decisions

In the Blackfeet Trial Court, in a land ownership dispute between a mother and son, where the son made loan payments on land prior to his father's death, the court determined that without documentation of an agreement for the loan or gift of money, and without testimony of disinterested witnesses, the law will presume gratuity. Nelson v. Wilson, 81 Mont. 560, 569; 264 P. 679, 682 (1928). The court reasoned that a person cannot become indebted without their knowledge or consent to debt. Plaintiff did not pay the purchase the purchase price for the Real property. They real property will …

Galbreath V. Galbreath, 81-Ca-27 (Blkft. Ct., August 2, 1990), Blackfeet Tribal Court

Court Decisions

In the Blackfeet Trial Court, in a land ownership dispute between a mother and son, where the son made loan payments on land prior to his father's death, the court determined that without documentation of an agreement for the loan or gift of money, and without testimony of disinterested witnesses, the law will presume gratuity. Nelson v. Wilson, 81 Mont. 560, 569; 264 P. 679, 682 (1928). The court reasoned that a person cannot become indebted without their knowledge or consent to debt. Plaintiff did not pay the purchase price for the Real property. The real property will remain the …

In Re Schildt, 90-Ca-119, 90-Ap-06 (Blkft. Tr. Ct. App., Apr. 3, 1990), Blackfeet Appellate Court

Court Decisions

The Blackfeet Tribal Court of Appeals remanded the case to the trial court for a full hearing because the appellant was not allowed to enter evidence or present witnesses substantiating his claims, in violation of his right to due process.

In Re D.D.S., A Minor Child, 90-Ap-02 (Blkft. Tr. Ct. App., March 29, 1990), Blackfeet Appellate Court

Court Decisions

In the Blackfeet Tribal Court of Appeals, the Court determined whether a trial court judge could grant custody to a party that had not petitioned for custody and whether both parties were afforded due process by not being allowed to challenge the home study evaluations. The Court accepted these arguments as valid, finding that neither parent was afforded due process when they were not able to produce evidence for themselves or to challenge the home study evaluation. Custody was awarded to a third party despite no home study evaluation being made on that party. The case is remanded to the …

In Re Augare Children, 90-Ap-04 (Blkft. Tr. Ct. App., Feb. 7, 1990), Blackfeet Appellate Court

Court Decisions

In the Blackfeet Tribal Court of Appeals, the Court denied a writ of habeas corpus to return the children to their mother, citing the purpose of Habeas Corpus petitions are for unlawful detainment of persons in the tribal jail. The Court, sua sponte reversed the lower court’s temporary ex parte order granting custody to the children’s father, until a show cause hearing can be held to determine the best interests of the minor children. The Judge returned the children to their mother until a determination of their best interests can be made.

Deroche, Et Al. V. Blackfeet Indian Housing Authority, No. 89-Api (Blkft. Tr. Ct. App., Dec. 19, 1989) 17 Ilr 6036, Blackfeet Appellate Court

Court Decisions

The Blackfeet Tribal Court of Appeals affirms the trial court’s jury verdict in favor of plaintiffs in an action against the Blackfeet Indian Housing Authority.

Evans V. Evans, 85-Ca-25 (Blkft. Tr. Ct. App., Oct. 30, 1989), Blackfeet Appellate Court

Court Decisions

• In the Blackfeet Tribal Court of Appeals, the Court reversed a lower court judgement award less than an Actual federal Court Judgement. The Court reviewed whether or not the lower court applied the correct law.

• The Court determined that the trial court erred in allowing interested parties to submit proposals for distribution of funds derived from marital property to satisfy a marital debt. The Court also held that while the Blackfeet Tribal Law and Order Code does not provide a procedure to sue on a foreign judgement, Blackfeet Law and Order Code ch. 2, Sec. 2, permits the Court to …

  ---

  Go to article

In Re Zdp, A Minor Child, 89-J-47 (Blkft. Tr. Ct. App., Aug. 17, 1989), Blackfeet Appellate Court

Court Decisions

In the Blackfeet Tribal Court of Appeals, the Court vacated a previous Order of Temporary Custody, and returned the child to their parent, because it did not comport with Blackfeet Court of Appeals precedent regarding Ex Parte Orders. The Court reaffirmed that all petitions must have a Show Cause Hearing prior to an order being issues in order to comport with Due Process rights of all parties involved.

Tribe V. Cross Guns, 89-Ap-5 (Blkft. Tr. Ct. App., March 20, 1989), Blackfeet Appellate Court

Court Decisions

In the Blackfeet Tribal Court of Appeals, the Court determined that a lawyer facing disbarment needs to exhaust all administrative remedies prior to seeking appeal.

Brown V. Boucher, 88-Ap-8 (Blkft. Tr. Ct. App., Oct 21, 1988), Blackfeet Appellate Court

Court Decisions

• In the Blackfeet Tribal Court of Appeals, the Court granted a Motion to Strike, filed by appellant (Boucher), the Court reversed the lower court’s decision. The appellant Court concluded that the agister (person taking care of animals or livestock) has the primary responsibility for cattle in his care and would bear the burden of animals lost or damaged.

• Plaintiffs consigned more than 100 head of cattle to Defendant. The Cattle was inspected by a State brand Inspector. Several cows remained missing. There was no written contract between the ranchers, only a verbal agreement. The Plaintiffs did not have the opportunity …

  ---

  Go to article

Tribe V. Cross Guns, 88-Ap-10 (Blkft. Tr. Ct. App., Oct. 13, 1988), Blackfeet Appellate Court

Court Decisions

In the Blackfeet Tribal Court of Appeals, the Court reviewed whether sentencing maximums under Tribal Ordinance 82, a domestic violence statute, exceeded the scope of tribal sentencing authority under ICRA, rendering them unconstitutional. Language in the bill amending ICRA in 1986 indicated that enhanced sentencing authority was intended to “prevent and penalize the traffic of illegal narcotics on Indian reservations.” However, because the amended language in the actual text of ICRA only changed the sentencing authority of tribes and did not indicate that enhanced sentencing authority was limited to drug-related offenses, the Court concluded that the Tribe could enact enhanced …

In Re Collins, No. 86-J-373, 88-Ap-6 (Blkft. Tr. Ct. App., May 5, 1988)., Blackfeet Appellate Court

Court Decisions

The Court of Appeals declared a custody order null and void because not all parties known by the lower court to have an interest in the custody of a minor child were given notice of the hearing that determined custody.

Reevis V. Humphrey, 86-Ap-24 (Blkft. Tr. Ct. App., July 24, 1986), Blackfeet Appellate Court

Court Decisions

In the Blackfeet Tribal Court of Appeals, the Court denied a petition for a Writ of Mandamus because the Blackfeet Law and order Code, Ch. 11, did not authorize the Appellate Court to provide Mandamus relief in this particular case concerning a Blackfeet Tribal Court Administrator.

Tribe V. Rattler, 85-Ap-10 (Blkft. Tr. Ct. App., Nov. 27, 1985), Blackfeet Appellate Court

Court Decisions

In the Blackfeet Tribal Court of Appeals, the Court affirmed a lower court conviction of a Defendant for Assault and Battery after the Court found that there was sufficient evidence for the judge to find beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant committed the crime. The Appellant posed otherwise. The prosecution presented evidence on ability, motive, and intent, which are all essential elements of the crime under Blackfeet Tribal Law and Order Code, Ch. 5, Sec. 2, “Any Indian who shall willfully strike another person...shall be deemed guilty of Assault and Battery.”

Blackfeet Tribal Business Council V. East Glacier Water & Sewer Dist., No. 83ca174 (Blkft. Tr. Ct., Nov. 17, 1983) 11 Ilr 6021, Blackfeet Tribal Court

Court Decisions

Plaintiff Blackfeet Tribal Business Council sought to enjoin the East Glacier Water & Sewer District, a public corporation organized pursuant to state law, composed of both tribal members and nonmembers, and located entirely within the Blackfeet Reservation, from shutting off water and sewer services to certain tribal members. Defendants moved for dismissal, arguing that the tribal court lacks jurisdiction because this case involves non-Indians. Upon reviewing provisions of the tribal constitution and noting the use of tribal forums by nonmembers in suits against members, the court finds that this case involves the health, safety and welfare of both Indian and …

Blackfeet Tribal Business Council V. East Glacier Water & Sewer Dist., No. 83ca174 (Blkft. Tr. Ct., Nov. 17, 1983) 11 Ilr 6021, Blackfeet Tribal Court

Court Decisions

Plaintiff Blackfeet Tribal Business Council sought to enjoin the East Glacier Water & Sewer District, a public corporation organized pursuant to state law, composed of both tribal members and nonmembers, and located entirely within the Blackfeet Reservation, from shutting off water and sewer services to certain tribal members. Defendants moved for dismissal, arguing that the tribal court lacks jurisdiction because this case involves non-Indians. Upon reviewing provisions of the tribal constitution and noting the use of tribal forums by nonmembers in suits against members, the court finds that this case involves the health, safety and welfare of both Indian and …

First National Bank Of Browning V. Kittson, Et Al., No. 81-Ca-429 (Blkft. Tr. Ct., Oct. 4, 1982) 10 Ilr 6021, Blackfeet Tribal Court

Court Decisions

Plaintiff bank, a Montana corporation doing business within the boundaries of the Blackfeet Reservation, sought possession of the collateral used to secure a loan on which defendants had defaulted. Basing its jurisdiction on the fact that all transactions at issue "arose upon and were to be performed within" the reservation, the court orders that plaintiff is entitled to recover the collateral but is not entitled to a deficiency judgment in excess of the collateral's value because the bank continued to loan money to the defendants despite knowledge of defendants' "financial disarray."

First National Bank Of Browning V. Kittson, Et Al., No. 81-Ca-429 (Blkft. Tr. Ct., Oct. 4, 1982) 10 Ilr 6021, Blackfeet Tribal Court

Court Decisions

Plaintiff bank, a Montana corporation doing business within the boundaries of the Blackfeet Reservation, sought possession of the collateral used to secure a loan on which defendants had defaulted. Basing its jurisdiction on the fact that all transactions at issue "arose upon and were to be performed within" the reservation, the court orders that plaintiff is entitled to recover the collateral but is not entitled to a deficiency judgment in excess of the collateral's value because the bank continued to loan money to the defendants despite knowledge of defendants' "financial disarray."

Indian Monies And Welfare Eligibility, Raymond Cross, Barbara Rath

Faculty Journal Articles & Other Writings

This article discusses the issues raised when Indians --- who are receiving federal or state welfare assistance -- receive claims judgment monies, lease or royalty payments from trust lands, and damage awards in actions brought by the United States on their behalf. The article concludes that conflict between the rights that an Indian has due to his Indian status and the rights that he has as a citizen are unavoidable and these benefits and burdens must be reconciled as well as they can.

Fitzgerald V. Fitzgerald, Blackfeet Tribal Court

Court Decisions

No abstract provided.