Indigenous, Indian, and Aboriginal Law Commons^™

Tribe V. Marceau, 2010-Ap-05 (Blkft. Tr. Ct. App., Jun. 15, 2010), Blackfeet Appellate Court

Court Decisions

In a brief order, the Blackfeet Tribal Court of Appeals held that the Tribe could not appeal the trial court judge’s verdict of not guilty due to lack of evidence. The Court cited to Chapter 11 Sec. 11-A of the Blackfeet Tribal Law and Order Code, which limits the circumstances in which the Tribe can appeal in a criminal case. Sec. 11-B, which outlines the circumstances when the Tribe can appeal in a criminal case, does not provide that the Tribe can appeal a not guilty verdict.

Tribe V. Pepion, 2010-J-308 (Blkft. Tr. Ct. App., Jun. 15, 2010), Blackfeet Appellate Court

Court Decisions

In the Blackfeet Tribal Court of Appeals, the Court found that the Tribe had repeatedly violated the rights of Pepion, a minor, and had not followed the Blackfeet Family Code. The Court voided any outstanding probation obligations of Pepion.

Anderson V. Campos, 2010-Ap-01 (Blkft. Tr. Ct. App., June 15, 2010), Blackfeet Appellate Court

Court Decisions

In the Blackfeet Tribal Court of Appeals, the Court reaffirmed that pre-mature appeals, where the petitioner did not exhaust remedies at the lower court, will not be heard, absent extraordinary circumstances. If the lower court refuses petitioners' motion, then they have the opportunity for recourse through the appellate process.

Tribe V. Rides At The Door, 2009-Ap-14 (Blkft. Tr. Ct. App., May 26, 2010), Blackfeet Appellate Court

Court Decisions

In the Blackfeet Tribal Court of Appeals, the Court dismissed a criminal prosecution for lack of Speedy Trial after the Tribal Court Chief Clerks Office twice failed to convene a jury and the 180-day presumption of Speedy Trial elapsed. The Clerk spoke to the Defendant and erroneously informed them that the trial was reset. The Defendant failed to appear. No jury trial was subsequently convened. (See also Tribe v. Mad Plume, 93-AP-08 (Blkft. Tr. Ct. App., May 20, 1993); Tribe v. Mancha, 91-AP-03 (Blkft. Tr. Ct. App., Aug. 29, 1991))

Tribe V. Gobert, 2009-C-1143 (Blkft. Tr. Ct. App., May 19, 2010), Blackfeet Appellate Court

Court Decisions

In the Blackfeet Tribal Court of Appeals, the Court granted a motion to dismiss for lack of evidence. The Defendant claimed his right to due process was denied under the Blackfeet Laws and Order Code. The Court found that the Tribe failed to respond to the Defendant’s appeal.

In Re The Estate Of Avonne Goss, 2008 P 05, (Blkft. Tr. Ct. App., Nov. 4, 2009), Blackfeet Appellate Court

Court Decisions

In the Blackfeet Tribal Court of Appeals the Court answered teh question to whether the “Bill of Sale” of a home from Avonne Goss to Robbin Goss, for the sum of $1, constituted a valid legal document. The Court determined that the home will remain in full ownership of Robbin Goss and the Bill of Sale for $1 was a valid legal document.

In Re The Estate Of Avonne Goss, 2008 P 05, (Blkft. Tr. Ct. App., Nov. 4, 2009), Blackfeet Appellate Court

Court Decisions

In the Blackfeet Tribal Court of Appeals the Court answered the question to whether the “Bill of Sale” of a home from Avonne Goss to Robbin Goss, for the sum of $1, constituted a valid legal document. The Court determined that the home will remain in full ownership of Robbin Goss and the Bill of Sale for $1 was a valid legal document.

Goss V. Bird, Et. Al., 2008-Ca-129 2 (Blkft. Tr. Ct. App., May 14, 2009), Blackfeet Appellate Court

Court Decisions

In the Blackfeet Tribal Court of Appeals, the Court declined to proceed with an appeal until the lower court holds a hearing to determine Defendants self-insurance claim in a Motion for Summary Judgement. The Court noted that the lower court failed to address the issue of self-insurance and remanded the case back to the lower court to make that determination, prior to accepting the case in an appellate court.

L. Kaline V. J. Kaline, 2007-Ca-126 (Blkft. Tr. Ct. App., Sept. 29, 2008), Blackfeet Appellate Court

Court Decisions

In the Blackfeet Tribal Court of Appeals, the Court determined that the lower court did not err in the distribution of property when the court relied on property lists supplied by both the Plaintiff and Defendant, and after neither party objected to the property settlement. If a divorce has an agreeable settlement prior to the divorce, the court will not see it as a default divorce. The Court maintains a lower court determination when it is found to be fair and equitable and will not grant a stay on execution of judgement.

Ridesatthedoor V. Morris, 2004-Ap-18 (Blkft. Tr. Ct. App., March 14, 2007), Blackfeet Appellate Court

Court Decisions

In the Blackfeet Tribal Court of Appeals, the Court clarified that in a Cicil Action where the petitioner fails to answer the appeal, and the time limit has long since expired, the case may be dismissed.

Tribe V. Jackson, 2004-Ap-14 (Blkft. Tr. Ct. App., February 20, 2007), Blackfeet Appellate Court

Court Decisions

In the Blackfeet Tribal Court of Appeals, the Court determined that the case has not met the timelines for appeal, and the Order of Judge Johnson (April 4, 2005) and Sentencing Order (May 27, 2005) are upheld. Further, the case was remanded back to the lower court to be dealt with. The court found that there was no appeal filed.

Tribe V. Wippert, Blackfeet Appellate Court

Court Decisions

In the Blackfeet tribal Court of Appeals, the Court reviewed whether the defendant’s rights were violated when the lower court sustained an objection by the prosecutor, denying defense counsel’s assertion that he had the right to review evidence prior to trial. In this case, the defendant did not appear for his initial trial setting and his defense counsel withdrew and transferred the case to another attorney. That attorney noticed that none of the discovery evidence was given to him, in the file, and only the underlying warrant was available to him. The Judge ordered a continuance, without motion, so the …

Tribe V. Roland, 2002 C-4874-4886 (Blkft. Tr. Ct. App., Dec. 6, 2006), Blackfeet Appellate Court

Court Decisions

In the Blackfeet Tribal Court of Appeals, the Court reversed a lower court order which dismissed a case for lack of personal jurisdiction. The question before the Court was whether the Defendant was swept into the criminal jurisdiction of the Blackfeet tribe by reason of the “Duro-fix.” (See Duro v. Reina, 45 U.S. 676 (1990), §25 U.S.C. 1301(2), U.S. v. Lara, 541 U.S. 193 (2004), and Means v. Navajo Nation, 432 F.3d 924 (2005)).

The “Duro-fix” is an amendment to the Indian Civil Rights Act which confirmed that an Indian Tribe has “inherent power” to exercise criminal jurisdiction over all …

Augare V. Baker, 2004-Ca-275 (Blkft. Tr. Ct. App., Oct. 10, 2006), Blackfeet Appellate Court

Court Decisions

The Blackfeet Tribal Court of Appeals upheld the lower court’s opinion denying the defendant’s appeal that the lower court Judge heard nothing but hearsay and that he was unfairly represented. The plaintiff filed a civil complaint in the lower court stating the defendant owed him $6,875 in back rent, missing property, and odd jobs that the defendant promised to do. The Court of Appeals found that the defendant had every opportunity to seek counsel and failed to do so in a timely manner.

Laplante V. Winkowitsch, 05-Ap-08 (Blkft. Tr. Ct. App., Oct. 10, 2006), Blackfeet Appellate Court

Court Decisions

In the Blackfeet Tribal Court of Appeals, the Court considering a dispute over the pasturing of cattle longer than the original contract terms. While the original two-month contract was in writing, both parties agree that a verbal contract, with terms, covered the next two months. Cattle was lost and Defendant countersued for the loss of cattle. On Appeal, the Court determined that the lower court judge should have recused himself because he briefly represented the plaintiff in this matter before becoming judge. The Findings of fact were not supported by substantial credible evidence, and the pro se plaintiff, who did …

In Re T.G. Jr., A Minor Child, 2006-Ap-01 (Blkft. Tr. Ct. App., May 5, 2006), Blackfeet Appellate Court

Court Decisions

In the Blackfeet Tribal Court of Appeals, the Court denied a motion for appeal and remanded the case back to Family Court. The father of TG Jr., filed for a motion for appeal on January 17, 2006. The Court found that motion for appeal was premature under Chapter 11, Section 30 of the Blackfeet Law and Order Code of 1968 that reads, “A party aggrieved may appeal from a final judgment entered in an action or proceeding commenced in the Tribal Court.” Because no final judgment had been issued by the Blackfeet Family Court, the Blackfeet Tribal Court of Appeals …

In Re O’Neil, 06-Ap-15 (Blkft. Tr. Ct. App., April 15, 2006), Blackfeet Appellate Court

Court Decisions

• This matter stemmed from Jerry O’Neil’s appeal from an order of the Blackfeet Tribal Court barring him from practicing in the Tribal Court.  

• On February 23, 2006, Tribal Judge Johnson issued an order, sua sponte, requiring respondent to show cause why he should not be disbarred from practicing as an attorney/advocate in Blackfeet Tribal Court. O'Neil moved to quash the show cause order, and with a supporting memorandum attached a copy of his certificate of admission to practice and the relevant Blackfeet Law and Order Code that explains what attorneys must due when seeking admission to practice in Blackfeet Court. …

  ---

  Go to article

Tribe V. Rides At The Door, 06-Ap-13 (Blkft. Tr. Ct. App., Feb. 14, 2006), Blackfeet Appellate Court

Court Decisions

In the Blackfeet Tribal Court of Appeals, the Court refused to overturn a conviction, based on a guilty plea after the defendant claimed she was coerced into giving a guilty plea, because her grounds for appeal were vague and not sufficient to indicate how her due process rights were violated. Guilty plea upheld.

In Re I.I. And I.I, Minor Youths, 2005-Ap-15 (Blkft. Tr. Ct. App., January 11, 2006), Blackfeet Appellate Court

Court Decisions

In the Blackfeet Tribal Court of Appeals, the Court clarified a prior Appellate Court decision which returned two children to their parents on the Blackfeet Indian Reservation after their rights to Due Process were violated. The clarification made clear that the previous order did not vacate Blackfeet Family Services from continuing to supervise the children. They will continue to be supervised until either reunification, or the parental rights are terminated.

Tribe V. Young Running Crane 05-Ap-06 (Blkft. Tr. Ct. App., Date Omitted), Blackfeet Appellate Court

Court Decisions

In the Blackfeet Tribal Court of Appeals, the Court rejected a defendant’s appeal for violation of Due Process. The Defendant-Appellant failed to appear for oral argument after filing her own appeal, sans counsel. The Court notes that the Federal rules of Evidence require an objection, like the one appellant asserted, should have been made in the pre-trial stage or before trial, so as not to interrupt the pace and flow of the trial. Therefore, any argument regarding the relationships between witnesses, the judge, or the prosecutor should have been made before trial and cannot be used as an argument at …

Conseco Finance Servicing Corporation V. Patterson, 2005-Ap-03 (Blkft. Tr. Ct. App., Nov. 9, 2005), Blackfeet Appellate Court

Court Decisions

The lower court found that the defendant breached the contract he entered into with the plaintiff by failing to make monthly payments. The Blackfeet Tribal Appellate Court issued the defendant’s notice of appeal and request for stay of judgment pending appeal. The Blackfeet Tribal Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant. The appellant made no attempt to contact the Court regarding his appeal since the date of filing of the Notice of Appeal. Per the Blackfeet Law & Order Code reads, “Failure of an appellant to take any step other than the timely filing of a notice …

Comes At Night V. Comes At Night, 1998-Ca-512 (Blkft. Tr. Ct. App., August 17, 2005)., Blackfeet Appellate Court

Court Decisions

In the Blackfeet Tribal Court, the Court denied the Respondent’s motion to reconsider because it is untimely. The Court made this decision regarding the Court’s previous order (December 13, 2004) distributing property of the parties. Under Rule 60 of the F.R.Civ.Proc. any motion for relief from the judgment must be filed within 60 days of the date of the order.

In Re Paternity Of J.J.R.H., 2003-Paternity-I (Blkft. Tr. Ct. App., July 19, 2005), Blackfeet Appellate Court

Court Decisions

• In the Blackfeet Tribal Court of Appeals, the Court was asked to establish Paternity of a child, to determine the child’s degree of Indian blood for enrollment, and Terminate Parental Rights of the father. The petitioner-mother also asked the Court to order the respondent-father to give $1,000 to JJRH for lost per capita payments and to have the father meet JJRH to ask questions. Petitioner also requests the respondent pay half the DNA testing fees, or if refused, that the Court order respondent pay full cost and attorney’s fees. The respondent-father claims to be unaware of his degree of Indian …

  ---

  Go to article

In Re The Conservatorship Of Margaret Croff, 05-Ap-04 (Blkft. Tr. Ct. App., April 7, 2005), Blackfeet Appellate Court

Court Decisions

In the Blackfeet Tribal Court of Appeals, the Court determined that a previous appointment of a conservator, over an elder suffering from worsening dementia, did not follow Due Process, and was remanded to trial court for correction and compliance with the law. The Blackfeet Family Code, Ch.17, Sec. K requires that a determination of incompetence must be certified by proof from two qualified physicians to prove incompetence as defined in the Blackfeet Law and order Code. The Court determined that Margaret Croff should have been represented by legal counsel in such a life affecting situation. The case is remanded back …

Citizens Savings Bank & Trust Co. V. Wellman, 04-Ap-29 (Blkft. Tr. Ct. App., March 16, 2005), Blackfeet Appellate Court

Court Decisions

• In the Blackfeet Tribal Court of Appeals, the Court affirmed a lower court decision relating to the foreclosure and sale of the War Bonnet property and directed the lower court to regulate and oversee its sale, without the involvement of the Glacier County Sherrif and to forestall potential state-tribal entanglements.

• The Court considered two main issues:

• 1) whether the Tribal Court orders delegating tribal authority to a state entity and whether the tribal court had proper jurisdiction were authorized and legally correct; and

• 2) whether the Tribal Court orders relating to the sale of the War Bonnet property were authorized …

  ---

  Go to article

Bear Child V. Siyeh Dev, Inc., 2004 Ca 15 (Blkft. Ct., December 3, 2004), Blackfeet Tribal Court

Court Decisions

In the Blackfeet Tribal Court, in a personal injury tort claim by Bear Child (“Plaintiff”) against Siyeh Development inc, the Blackfeet Tribe, First American Insurance Group, and five separate John Does (collectively “Defendants”), the Court denied a motion to dismiss the claim on the grounds of sovereign immunity. The claim arose from a fall in one of the Tribe’s Bingo halls/casinos.

Defendants cited Oklahoma v. Manufacturing Technologies, 532 U.S. 751, stating that “Indian tribes enjoy sovereign immunity from civil suits on contracts whether those contracts involve governmental or commercial activities... a tribe is subject to suit only where Congress has …

Bear Child V. Siyeh Development, Inc., 2004 Ca 15 (Blkft. Tr. Ct., Dec. 3, 2004), Blackfeet Tribal Court

Court Decisions

Bear Child, a member of the Blackfeet Tribe, was injured in a fall at one of the Tribe’s casino/bingo halls. Bear Child filed a personal injury suit against the Tribe, the Siyeh corporation which runs the casino/bingo hall, and First Americans Insurance, Siyeh’s insurer. The defendants moved to dismiss the case on the grounds of sovereign immunity. Siyeh argued that it is a department of the Tribe, entitling it to sovereign immunity. The Trial Court was unpersuaded by the defendants’ arguments for sovereign immunity. The Court held that the Tribe was acting in its corporate, not governmental capacity in relation …

Tall White Man Et. Al. V. Blackfeet Indian Housing Authority, 97-Ca-474 & 99-Ap-37 (Blkft. Tr. Ct. App., Nov. 23, 2004), Blackfeet Appellate Court

Court Decisions

• In the Blackfeet Tribal Court of Appeals, the Court addressed a waiver of sovereign immunity in a suit between a decedent’s children against the tribe and involving a third-party defendant, Simpson Dura-Vent Company, Inc. Plaintiffs alleged negligence against the Blackfeet Indian Housing Authority (BIHA) for failing to maintain the furnace in their decedent father’s tribal housing unit. Plaintiff’s father died due to carbon monoxide poisoning.

• BIHA was created through Tribal Ordinance# 7, effective January 7, 1977. Article V, paragraph 2 of the Ordinance provides as follows: “The Council hereby gives its irrevocable consent to allowing the Authority to sue and …

  ---

  Go to article

Tribe V. Spotted Bear, 2003 C 5946 (Blkft. Tr. Ct. App., Oct. 25, 2004), Blackfeet Appellate Court

Court Decisions

In the Blackfeet Tribal Court of Appeals, the Court considered whether a sentence for assault and trespass was excessive. The Court ruled that the Defendant was sentenced beyond the statutory maximum. The Court remanded back to lower court for resentencing but urged the court to consider the fact that the defendant is a single parent of a small child, has completed anger management classes, and outpatient treatment for chemical dependency, and is not a habitual offender, when considering its new sentence.

Tribe V. White Wolf Hall, 04-Ap-14 (Blkft. Tr. Ct. App., Oct. 7, 2004), Blackfeet Appellate Court

Court Decisions

• In the Blackfeet Tribal Court of Appeals, the Court considered whether the defendant’s rights were violated when the lower court judge did not follow sentencing guidelines for the defendant. In this case, the defendant was convicted of child abuse and domestic abuse, with consecutive sentences, allowing parole after six months.  

• The Court noted that the lower court should have utilized Blackfeet Family Code, Ch. 22, Sec. 4, for child abuse providing that sentences should be between $50-200 and a term of imprisonment to not exceed 15 days. 

• Also, for domestic abuse, the Blackfeet Law and Order code, ch. 9, Sec. …

  ---

  Go to article