Indigenous, Indian, and Aboriginal Law Commons^™

Validity Of A State Court's Exercise Of Concurrent Jurisdiction Over Civil Actions Arising In Indian Country: Application Of The Indian Abstention Doctrine In State Court, John J. Harte

American Indian Law Review

No abstract provided.

Nuclear Incidents On Indian Reservations: Who Has Jurisdiction? Tribal Court Exhaustion Versus The Price-Anderson Act, James W. Kuntz

American Indian Law Review

No abstract provided.

Protecting Profits Derived From Tribal Resources: Why The State Of Utah Should Not Have The Power To Tax Non-Indian Oil And Gas Lessees On The Navajo Nation's Aneth Extension: Texaco, Exxon, And Union Oil V. San Juan County School District--A Case Study, Richard J. Ansson Jr.

American Indian Law Review

No abstract provided.

Tribal Court General Civil Jurisdiction Over Actions Between Non-Indian Plaintiffs And Defendants: Strate V. A-1 Contractors, Jamelle King

American Indian Law Review

No abstract provided.

Adjudication In Indian Country: The Confusing Parameters Of State, Federal, And Tribal Jurisdiction, Laurie Reynolds

William & Mary Law Review

No abstract provided.

Conquering The Cultural Frontier: The New Subjectivism Of The Supreme Court In Indian Law, David H. Getches

Publications

For a century and a half, the Supreme Court was faithful to a set of foundation principles respecting Indian tribal sovereignty. Though the United States can abrogate tribal powers and rights, it can only do so by legislation. Accordingly, the Court has protected reservations as enclaves for Indian self-government, preventing states from enforcing their laws and taxes, and holding that even federal laws could not be applied to Indians without congressional permission. Recently, however, the Court has assumed the job it formerly conceded to Congress, considering and weighing cases to reach results comporting with the Justices' subjective notions of what …

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).

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 …

Duncan Energy V. Three Affiliated Tribes (1994), United States Court Of Appeals, Eighth Circuit

US Government Documents Related to Indigenous Nations

This court case, decided on June 8, 1994, was the result of an appeal of an earlier decision made on September 28, 1992. This suit was initially filed by Duncan Energy (and others) who were operating oil and gas wells in the northeast quadrant of the Fort Berthold Reservation. They contended that the northeast quadrant of land was not part of the Reservation per the act of 1910 and as such they were not subject to taxation and employment ordinances set by the Three Affiliated Tribes. The 1992 ruling found that act of 1910 did not diminish the Reservation and …

State's Rights, Tribal Sovereignty, And The "White Man's Firewater": State Prohibition Of Gambling On New Indian Lands, Leah L. Lorber

Indiana Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Federal Recent Developments

American Indian Law Review

No abstract provided.

Breaking Into The Intergovernmental Matrix: The Lumbee Tribe's Efforts To Secure Federal Acknowledgment, David E. Wilkins

Jepson School of Leadership Studies articles, book chapters and other publications

This article discusses the concept of political recognition (both federal and state) of Indian tribes; explains the difference between administrative and legislative recognition; examines who is or should be empowered to extend federal recognition, the Congress or the executive branch; discusses the major factors that have compelled the Lumbees to seek federal recognition when they were already acknowledged by the state; and examines the major factors that have precluded them from securing complete federal recognition.

Pathfinder: Tribal, Federal, And State Court Subject Matter Jurisdictional Bounds: Suits Involving Native American Interests, John W. Gillingham

American Indian Law Review

No abstract provided.

Federal Recent Developments

American Indian Law Review

No abstract provided.

Duncan Energy V. Three Affiliated Tribes (1992), District Court Of North Dakota

US Government Documents Related to Indigenous Nations

This court case, decided on September 28, 1992, established that the northeast quadrant of the Fort Berthold Reservation was part of the Reservation (therefore within tribal jurisdiction) but found that the Three Affiliated Tribes did not have taxation and employment authority over the gas and oil companies operating in that quadrant. Per Tribal Tax Code, any property on the Reservation used for business or profit is subject to a one-percent taxation and per the Tribal Employment Rights Office Ordinance (TERO), any employers within the Reservation must give preference to Native American workers. The Three Affiliated Tribes attempted to levy a …

Falling Through The Cracks After Duro V. Reina: A Close Look At A Jurisdictional Failure, Eric B. White

Seattle University Law Review

The decision in Duro v. Reina needlessly creates a jurisdictional gap over nonmember Indians committing minor crimes against other Indians on reservation land and leaves open the very real possibility that neither the federal nor the state governments will move in to fill that gap. A nonmember offender at the Washington festival would simply walk away. To understand how this jurisdictional gap over nonmember Indians needlessly came about and why neither the federal government nor the state governments will step in to exercise jurisdiction, this Note (1) looks at the complex web of law on criminal jurisdiction over Indians; (2) …

Federal Recent Development

American Indian Law Review

No abstract provided.

American Indians And The Constitution: An Argument For Nationhood, Steven Paul Mcsloy

American Indian Law Review

No abstract provided.

National Farmers Union And Its Progeny: Does It Create A New Federal Court System?, Philip J. Smith

American Indian Law Review

No abstract provided.

Environmental Regulation On Indian Reservations, B. Kevin Gover

Natural Resource Development in Indian Country (Summer Conference, June 8-10)

45 pages.

The Process Of Decision-Making In Tribal Courts, Tom Tso

Natural Resource Development in Indian Country (Summer Conference, June 8-10)

11 pages.

Federal Recent Developments

American Indian Law Review

No abstract provided.

Three Affiliated Tribes V. Wold Engineering (1986), United States Supreme Court, Sandra Day O'Connor

US Government Documents Related to Indigenous Nations

Three Affiliated Tribes v. Wold Engineering is a case that forced the United States (US) Supreme Court to clarify US Public Law 83-280 (typically referred to as Public Law 280). Due to a lack of clarity in US Public Law 280, when the Three Affiliated Tribes attempted to sue Wold Engineering for breach of contract, North Dakota (ND) state courts told the tribes that they were unable to preside over a case between a sovereign nation and a private business. The ND Supreme Court held that the tribes would have to give up tribal sovereignty if they wanted to try …

Three Affiliated Tribes Of Fort Berthold Reservation V. Wold Engineering, P.C., Lewis F. Powell Jr.

Supreme Court Case Files

No abstract provided.

Can A Tribal Court Be Enjoined From Exercising Jurisdiction Over Nonmembers Of The Tribe?, Richard B. Collins

Publications

No abstract provided.

Ferc, Purpa And The Federal Power Act, Lawrence J. Wolfe

The Federal Impact on State Water Rights (Summer Conference, June 11-13)

62 pages.

Contains references.

Three Affiliated Tribes V. Wold Engineering (1984), United States Supreme Court, Harry Blackmun

US Government Documents Related to Indigenous Nations

Three Affiliated Tribes v. Wold Engineering is a case that forced the United States (US) Supreme Court to clarify US Public Law 83-280 (typically referred to as Public Law 280). Due to a lack of clarity in US Public Law 280, when the Three Affiliated Tribes attempted to sue Wold Engineering for breach of contract, North Dakota (ND) state courts told the tribes that they were unable to preside over a case between a sovereign nation and a private business. The North Dakota courts held that the tribes would have to give up tribal sovereignty if they wanted to try …

Criminal Jurisdiction: Jurisdiction To Sentence And Convict For Lesser Included Offenses Under The Major Crimes Act: A Critical Assessment Of The Keeble Legacy, Susan M. Mcgoldrick

American Indian Law Review

No abstract provided.

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 …