Indigenous, Indian, and Aboriginal Law Commons^™

Permanent Legislation To Correct Duro V. Reina, Nell Jessup Newton

American Indian Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Indian Child Welfare Act And Equal Protection Limitations On The Federal Power Over Indian Affairs, John Robert Renner

American Indian Law Review

No abstract provided.

Modern Problems Of Criminal Jurisdiction In Indian Country, Kevin Meisner

American Indian Law Review

No abstract provided.

Fish Out Of Water: Setting A Single Standard For Allocation Of Treaty Resources, Eric Eisenstadt

American Indian Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Best Interests Of Indian Children In Minnesota, Lynn Klicker Uthe

American Indian Law Review

No abstract provided.

Pollution And Hazardous Waste On Indian Lands: Do Federal Laws Apply And Who May Enforce Them?, Teresa A. Williams

American Indian Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Cherokee Cases: The Fight To Save The Supreme Court And The Cherokee Indians, Ronald A. Berutti

American Indian Law Review

No abstract provided.

De Novo Review: An Alternative To State And Federal Court Jurisdiction Of Non-Indian Minor Crimes On Indian Land, Ted Wills

American Indian Law Review

No abstract provided.

Federal Recent Developments

American Indian Law Review

No abstract provided.

Address: To Do The Right Thing: Reaffirming Cherokee Traditions Of Justice Under Law, Rennard Strickland

American Indian Law Review

No abstract provided.

Books Received

American Indian Law Review

No abstract provided.

Aboriginal Claims To Cultural Property In Canada: A Comparative Legal Analysis Of The Repatriation Debate, Catherine Bell

American Indian Law Review

No abstract provided.

A New Corridor For The Maze: Tribal Criminal Jurisdiction And Nonmember Indians, William V. Vetter

American Indian Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Policy Choices Tribes Face When Deciding Whether To Enact A Water Code, Thomas W. Clayton

American Indian Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Zuni Quest For Repatriation Of The War Gods: An Alternative Basis For Claim, Adele Merenstein

American Indian Law Review

No abstract provided.

One Is Missing: Native American Graves Protection And Repatriation Act: An Overview And Analysis, June Camille Bush Raines

American Indian Law Review

No abstract provided.

Federal Recent Developments

American Indian Law Review

No abstract provided.

Book Review: American Indian Water Rights And The Limits Of Law By Lloyd Burton, Edward Janecek Iii

American Indian Law Review

No abstract provided.

Permanent Legislation To Correct Duro V. Reina, Nell Jessup Newton

Journal Articles

In Duro v. Reinal the Supreme Court held that Indian tribal courts do not have criminal jurisdiction over nonmember Indians. In so doing the Court extended its earlier holding in Oliphant v. Suquamish Indian Tribe, which had prevented tribes from exercising criminal jurisdiction over non-Indians and struck a serious blow to tribal sovereignty. The Oliphant decision has been soundly criticized as ahistorical and even dishonest, as well as essentially ethnocentric. The case also posed grave dangers to tribal people, because of the great number of nonmember Indians who live and work on Indian reservations, and the fact that nonmembers fall …

Indian Claims In The Courts Of The Conqueror, Nell Jessup Newton

Journal Articles

The Federal Circuit reviews Indian claims because Congress combined the former Court of Claims, which had jurisdiction over Indian claims, with the Court of Patent and Customs Appeals to create the new Claims Court. The jurisdiction of the Court of Claims also included some patent cases as well as tax, contract, pay suits, takings cases, and congressional reference cases. Congress added the Court of Claims to this mix in part to counter the argument that the two new courts, the Claims Court and the Federal Circuit, would become overly specialized.

Indian claims comprise only a tiny portion of the jurisdiction …

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.

Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community Water Rights Settlement Act Of 1988, Amendments Of 1991, United States 102nd Congress

Native American Water Rights Settlement Project

Federal Legislation: 1991 Amendments to Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community Water Rights Settlement of 1988 (Dec. 17, 1991} Amends the Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community Water Rights Settlement Act of 1988 (PL 100-512, sections7(a), 7(d), 10(a)(1)(A), 10(a)(1)(B), and 12(b)) to extend the deadline for completing such Settlement from Dec. 31, 1991, to June 30, 1992. [Source: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/browse/collection.action?collectionCode=GPO&browsePath=United+States+Statutes+at+Large+%28Digitized%29%2F1992&searchPath=United+States+Statutes+at+Large+%28Digitized%29%2F1992&leafLevelBrowse=false&isCollapsed=false&isOpen=true&ancestors=root&packageid=STATUTE-106&ycord=1025]

Implementing Certain Recommendations Of The Garrison Unit Joint Tribal Advisory Committee Regarding The Entitlement Of The Three Affiliated Tribes And The Standing Rock Sioux Tribe To Additional Financial Compensation For The Taking Of Reservation Lands For The Site Of The Garrison Dam And Reservoir And The Oahe Dam And Reservoir And For Other Purposes, United States Congress, Us House Of Representatives

US Government Documents Related to Indigenous Nations

This report from the United States (US) House Select Committee on Indian Affairs, dated November 26, 1991, was written to accompany US Senate Bill 168 which aimed to provide the Three Affiliated Tribes and Standing Rock Sioux with fair compensation for lands taken for construction of the Garrison Dam and Oahe Dam as well as the return of land that was taken but not used for the dam projects. The report summarizes the background and need for US Senate Bill 168, and it acknowledges that the implementation of the Pick-Sloan Plan effectively forced the Three Affiliated tribes off their land …

An Act Making Appropriations For The Department Of The Interior And Related Agencies For The Fiscal Year Ending September 30, 1992, And For Other Purposes, United States 102nd Congress

Native American Water Rights Settlement Project

Federal Legislation: San Luis Rey Indian Water Rights Settlement Act Amendment of 1991 Authority to Disburse Interest Income from the San Luis Rey Tribal Development Fund. (Nov. 13, 1991) Parties: La Jolla, Rincon, San Pasqual, Pauma, and Pala Bands of Mission Indians, US, CA, Escondido Mutual Water Company and Vista Irrigation District. Amends Public Law 100-675, Sec. 117 to provide authority to disburse interest income to the San Luis Rey Indian Water Authority from the San Luis Rey Tribal Development Fund until the final Settlement is completed. [Source: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/browse/collection.action?collectionCode=GPO&browsePath=United+States+Statutes+at+Large+%28Digitized%29%2F1991&searchPath=United+States+Statutes+at+Large+%28Digitized%29%2F1991&leafLevelBrowse=false&isCollapsed=false&isOpen=true&ancestors=root&packageid=STATUTE-105&ycord=1025]

Two Sides Of The Same Coin: The Potential Normative Power Of American Cities And Indian Tribes, Kevin J. Worthen

Vanderbilt Law Review

People do not normally associate cities with Indian reservations.The mental images typically conjured by each term are radically different. For most people, "city" evokes visions of skyscrapers, streets teeming with traffic, and bustling crowds. "Indian reservation," on the other hand, brings to mind pictures of solitude, rugged nature, and large empty spaces.

Perhaps for that reason, few think of city governments' and tribal governments in similar terms. The two entities usually are oblivious of one another. When they are introduced, it is often as adversaries in a legal battle concerning the right to govern some rural western community.

Yet, the …

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.”

Resource Law Notes Newsletter, No. 23, Oct. 1991, University Of Colorado Boulder. Natural Resources Law Center

Resource Law Notes: The Newsletter of the Natural Resources Law Center (1984-2002)

No abstract provided.

Sparrow And Lone Wolf: Honoring Tribal Rights In Canada And The United States, Matthew D. Wells

Washington Law Review

Tribal sovereignty and self-government are essential to Native American cultural survival. Current limitations on Congress' plenary power in Indian affairs are inadequate to protect these core tribal rights. This Comment examines recent developments in Canadian law and proposes legislation following the Canadian example to better protect core tribal rights in the United States.

Justification And Cultural-Authority In S.35(1) Of The Constitution Act, 1982: Regina V. Sparrow, Chris Tennant

Dalhousie Law Journal

Regina v. Sparrow is the first decision of the Supreme Court of Canada under s.35(1) of the Constitution Ac 1982. The case has wide-reaching implications for the recognition and limitation of aboriginal rights. This case comment will explore some of the implications of Sparrow, with a focus on the test developed by the Court for the justification of government regulation of aboriginal rights. In particular, the question of the cultural authority of non-aboriginal judges to justify legislation regulating aboriginal rights will be addressed.