Indigenous, Indian, and Aboriginal Law Commons^™

In Re Custody Of Dfs, A Minor Child 92-Ap-4 (Blkft. Tr. Ct. App., April 29, 1992), Blackfeet Appellate Court

Court Decisions

• In the Blackfeet tribal Court of Appeals, the Court considered whether the best interests of a child surpass the interests of other interested parties.

• The Court affirmed a lower court decision awarding custody of DFS to the child's natural parents over the child’s grandparents. In the view of the Court, the interests of the minor child are paramount to the interests of all other interested parties. The Court will not disturb the findings of a lower court to the best interests of the child absent evidence that the lower court failed to adequately consider contrary evidence. It is the duty …

  ---

  Go to article

In Re Dfse, A Minor Child, 92-Ap-04 (Blkft. Tr. Ct. App., April 29, 1992), Blackfeet Appellate Court

Court Decisions

• In the Blackfeet Tribal Court of Appeals, the Court affirmed a lower court determination to award custody of a minor child to the child’s natural parents, over the objection of the grandparents, who also sought custody. The Court noted that the interests of the minor child are paramount to the interests of all other interested parties. It is the responsibility of the trial court judge to evaluate testimony that is made available to him at the trial level to ascertain what is best for the minor child. The Court recognizes that the natural aprents are the nuclear family and thus …

  ---

  Go to article

In Re Vielle Children, 92-Ap-05 (Blkft. Tr. Ct. App., April 27, 1992), Blackfeet Appellate Court

Court Decisions

In the Blackfeet Tribal Court of Appeals, the Court vacated a prior temporary custody order which granted custody to the natural mother, and restored custody to the natural father. The Court reasoned that the previous temporary Custody Order was issued ex parte, directly to the judge without the other party’s knowledge, a practice that has been long prohibited. The lower court judge was removed from that case and deprived of all authority over this matter. This order violated due process rights of the father and the Blackfeet Law and Order Code.

In Re Vielle Children, 92-Ap-05 (Blkft. Tr. Ct. App., April 27, 1992), Blackfeet Appellate Court

Court Decisions

In the Blackfeet Tribal Court of Appeals, the Court vacated a prior temporary custody order which granted custody to the natural mother, and restored custody to the natural father. The Court reasoned that the previous temporary Custody Order was issued ex parte, directly to the judge without the other party’s knowledge, a practice that has been long prohibited. The lower court judge was removed from that case and deprived of all authority over this matter. This order violated due process rights of the father and the Blackfeet Law and Order Code.

In Re Am, A Minor Child, 92-Ap-03 (Blkft. Tr. Ct. App., April 15, 1992), Blackfeet Appellate Court

Court Decisions

In the Blackfeet Tribal Court of Appeals, the Court reversed a lower court order determining a dispute over an emergency custody order. Teh Court made the determination to reverse the lower court determination partly based on the lack of sufficient evidence to warrant emergency removal of the child. Ch. 7, Se. 4, of the Blackfeet Law and order Code requires a show cause hearing where evidence is presented to substantiate immediate and//or apparent danger of violence or serious bodily injury to the child. Additionally, a child is entitled to representation through guardian-ad-litem. The Court clarified that a Juvenile Officer is …

Tribe V. Glaze, 92-Ap-01 (Blkft. Tr. Ct. App., March 17, 1992), Blackfeet Appellate Court

Court Decisions

The Blackfeet Tribal Court of Appeals remanded this case back to the lower court for an immediate jury trial for two reasons. First, the court held that the Tribal Court exists to protect the rights of the people. The prosecutor was allowed to assume a case practically as it came before the bench does not ensure that an orderly, consistent, fair judicial process can be followed. The Tribal Court’s professionalism is allowed to be diminished during these times, in which the appellant’s are likely to find a substantiated basis to have decisions reversed. Second, the court held that once a …

Burns V. Burns, 88-Ca-579, 91-Ap-21 (Blkft. Tr. Ct. App., Dec. 17, 1991), Blackfeet Appellate Court

Court Decisions

The Blackfeet Tribal Court of Appeals upheld the trial court’s denial of a motion for reconsideration. The trial court held that under Rule 6, Chapter 11 of the Blackfeet Tribal Code, a motion for reconsideration must present the court with something that would make the judge change their previous ruling, such as newly discovered evidence.

Youngman V. England, 91-Ca-07, 91-Ap-13 (Blkft. Tr. Ct. App., Dec. 17, 1991), Blackfeet Appellate Court

Court Decisions

The Blackfeet Tribal Court of Appeals remanded the case to the trial court because the defendant was served only one day before trial and therefore did not have enough time to prepare, violating his right to due process.

Pollock V. Pollock, 91-Ap-10 (Blkft. Tr. Ct. App., October 25, 1991), Blackfeet Appellate Court

Court Decisions

The Blackfeet Tribal Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the lower court holding that the “General Rule” that the lower court judge used has broad latitude in defining what is beneficial to the child is affirmed. The “General Rule” used in the lower court is cited as 40-4-224 “Joint Custody-Modification-Consultation with Professionalism.”

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 …