Search results

(61 - 80 of 168)

Pages

In the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit: nos. 74-2438, 74-2705, 74-2602: United States of America, plaintiff, Muckleshoot Indian Tribe, Squaxin Island Tribe of Indians, Sauk-Suiattle Indian Tribe, Skokomish Indian Tribe, Stillaguamish
Title
In the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit: nos. 74-2438, 74-2705, 74-2602: United States of America, plaintiff, Muckleshoot Indian Tribe, Squaxin Island Tribe of Indians, Sauk-Suiattle Indian Tribe, Skokomish Indian Tribe, Stillaguamish Tribe of Indians, Quinault Tribe of Indians, Makah Indian Tribe, Lummi Indian Tribe, Quileute Indian Tribe, Hoh Tribe of Indians, Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakima Indian Nation, Upper Skagit River Tribe, Nisqually Indian Community of the Nisqually Reservation, and Puyallup Tribe of the Puyallup Reservation, intervenor-plaintiffs-appellants, v. State of Washington, defendant-appellee, Thor C. Tollefson, director, Washington State Department of Fisheries; Carl Crouse, director, Washington Department of Game; and Washington State Game Commission, intervenor-defendants-appellees : on appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington: appellants' reply brief
Summary
Case summary: Tribes are entitled to continued access to traditional off-reservation fishing grounds, one-half total run of fish, and may regulate their members' fishing, while state may regulate Indian fishing rights only if necessary for conservation and if run cannot otherwise be preserved.
Year
1974
Type
Litigation
Publisher
[Native American Rights Fund?]
Place
[Boulder, Colo.?]
United States et al., plaintiffs, v. State of Washington et al., defendants: civ. no. 9213
Title
United States et al., plaintiffs, v. State of Washington et al., defendants: civ. no. 9213
Summary
Case summary: The District Court denied Indian plaintiffs motion for attorney fees holding the Eleventh Amendment precluded the award of attorney fees against the state defendants. Decision rendered by Judge George Hugo Boldt of the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington.
Year
1974
Type
Litigation
Publisher
West Pub. Co.
Place
St. Paul
United States of America, plaintiff, Quinault Tribe of Indians on its own behalf and on behalf of the Queets Band of Indians, et al., intervenor-plaintiffs, v. State of Washington, defendant, Thor C. Tollefson, Director, Washington State Department of Fis
Title
United States of America, plaintiff, Quinault Tribe of Indians on its own behalf and on behalf of the Queets Band of Indians, et al., intervenor-plaintiffs, v. State of Washington, defendant, Thor C. Tollefson, Director, Washington State Department of Fisheries, et al., intervenor-defendants: civil no. 9213: motion for attorneys' fees and other expenses
Summary
Case summary: The District Court denied Indian plaintiffs motion for attorney fees holding the Eleventh Amendment precluded the award of attorney fees against the state defendants. Decision rendered by Judge George Hugo Boldt of the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington.
Year
1974
Type
Litigation
Publisher
[Native American Rights Fund?]
Place
[Boulder, Colo.?]
Amending the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act: hearing before the Subcommittee on Indian Affairs of the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, House of Representatives, ninety-third congress, second session on H.R. 12355, to amend the Alaska Native
Title
Amending the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act: hearing before the Subcommittee on Indian Affairs of the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, House of Representatives, ninety-third congress, second session on H.R. 12355, to amend the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act, (85 Stat. 688): hearing held in Washington, D.C. Feb. 4, 1974
Summary
Oral and written testimony of David H. Getches during the Congressional hearing on amending the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act, held on Feb. 4, 1974 in Washington, D.C.
Year
1974
Type
Congressional Testimony
Publisher
U.S. Government Printing Office
Place
Washington
United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit: no. 73-2184 : Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe of Indians, appellee, v. Rogers C.B. Morton, Secretary of the Interior, appellant: appeal from the United States District Court for the District o
Title
United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit: no. 73-2184 : Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe of Indians, appellee, v. Rogers C.B. Morton, Secretary of the Interior, appellant: appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia: brief of appellee
Summary
Case summary: Secretary of the Interior violated his fiduciary obligations to the Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe by failing to minimize diversions from river feeding reservation lake, which resulted in continued diminishment of the lake and its fisheries. However, the tribe was not entitled to award of attorneys' fees.
Year
1974
Type
Litigation
Publisher
[Native American Rights Fund?]
Place
[Boulder, Colo.?]
United States of America Federal Power Commission: Escondido Mutual Water Company, project no. 176: Secretary of the Interior acting in his capacity as trustee for the Rincon, La Jolla, and San Pasqual Bands of Mission Indians v. Escondido Mutual Water Co
Title
United States of America Federal Power Commission: Escondido Mutual Water Company, project no. 176: Secretary of the Interior acting in his capacity as trustee for the Rincon, La Jolla, and San Pasqual Bands of Mission Indians v. Escondido Mutual Water Company and City of Escondido, California, docket no. E-7562: Vista Irrigation District, docket no. E-7655: brief of the La Jolla, Rincon, San Pasqual, Pauma and Pala Bands of Mission Indians and the Department of the Interior in support of the Bands' petition to declare certain uses of the project works in violation of the license for project no. 176
Summary
Case Summary: Federal Power Commission hearing in which Indians claim that Federal Power Commission license to water company affecting tribal water rights is legally and economically invalid.
Year
1974
Type
Litigation
Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe of Indians v. Rogers C. Morton, Secretary of the Interior, appellant: no. 73-2184
Title
Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe of Indians v. Rogers C. Morton, Secretary of the Interior, appellant: no. 73-2184
Summary
Case summary: Secretary of the Interior violated his fiduciary obligations to the Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe by failing to minimize diversions from river feeding reservation lake, which resulted in continued diminishment of the lake and its fisheries. However, the tribe was not entitled to award of attorneys' fees.
Year
1974
Type
Litigation
Publisher
West Pub. Co.
Place
St. Paul
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit: no. 74-2414 : United States of America, plaintiff-appellee, Muckleshoot Indian Tribe, Squaxin Island Tribe of Indians, Sauk-Suiattle Indian Tribe, Skokomish Indian Tribe, Stillaguamish Tribe of Indians
Title
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit: no. 74-2414 : United States of America, plaintiff-appellee, Muckleshoot Indian Tribe, Squaxin Island Tribe of Indians, Sauk-Suiattle Indian Tribe, Skokomish Indian Tribe, Stillaguamish Tribe of Indians, Quinault Tribe of Indians, Makah Indian Tribe, Lummi Indian Tribe, Quileute Indian Tribe, Hoh Tribe of Indians, Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakima Indian Nation, Upper Skagit River Tribe, Nisqually Indian Community of the Nisqually Reservation, and Puyallup Tribe of the Puyallup Reservation, intervenor-plaintiffs-appellees v. State of Washington, defendant-appellant, Thor C. Tollefson, director, Washington State Department of Fisheries; Carl Crouse, director, Washington Department of Game; Washington State Game Commission; and Washington Reef Net Owners Association, intervenor-defendants-appellants: Northwest Steelheaders Council of Trout Unlimited, intervenor-appellant: on appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington: brief of tribal appellees
Summary
Case summary: Tribes are entitled to continued access to traditional off-reservation fishing grounds, one-half total run of fish, and may regulate their members' fishing, while state may regulate Indian fishing rights only if necessary for conservation and if run cannot otherwise be preserved.
Year
1974
Type
Litigation
Publisher
[Native American Rights Fund?]
Place
[Boulder, Colo.?]
United States of America, plaintiff-appellant, v. Mary Akin et al., defendants-appellees: no. 73-1807
Title
United States of America, plaintiff-appellant, v. Mary Akin et al., defendants-appellees: no. 73-1807
Summary
Case summary: Court of Appeals reversed dismissal of the action brought by the United States on its own behalf and on behalf of the Southern Ute and the Ute Mountain Ute Indian tribes for adjudication of reserved water rights in the San Juan Basin. The Colorado River Water Conservation District intervened as defendant asserting the McCarran Amendment provides a state court jurisdiction over the United States in suits involving adjudication of water rights and excludes federal courts from assuming jurisdiction. The Court of Appeals rejected the argument and held the United States District Court for the District of Colorado did not lack jurisdiction to hear the action and its abstention was improper.
Year
1974
Type
Litigation
Publisher
West Pub. Co.
Place
St. Paul
In the Supreme Court of the United States, October term, 1973 : no. 73-1575: John D. Callahan, et al., petitioners v. Charles E. Kimball, et al., respondents
Title
In the Supreme Court of the United States, October term, 1973 : no. 73-1575: John D. Callahan, et al., petitioners v. Charles E. Kimball, et al., respondents: memorandum of respondents in opposition to petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Summary
Case summary: Former members of terminated Klamath Tribe who withdrew from tribe, and their descendants, retain rights under the Treaty of 1864 to hunt and fish within the former reservation free from state control, except for conservation purposes. Termination did not abrogate the hunting and fishing rights guaranteed by treaty of tribal members who withdrew from tribe and accepted individual shares rather than interest share in tribal property.
Year
1974
Type
Litigation
Publisher
Byron S. Adams Printing
Place
Washington, D.C.
In the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit : nos. 74-2438, 74-2705, 74-2602: United States of America, plaintiff, Muckleshoot Indian Tribe, Squaxin Island Tribe of Indians, Sauk-Suiattle Indian Tribe, Skokomish Indian Tribe, Stillaguamish
Title
In the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit : nos. 74-2438, 74-2705, 74-2602: United States of America, plaintiff, Muckleshoot Indian Tribe, Squaxin Island Tribe of Indians, Sauk-Suiattle Indian Tribe, Skokomish Indian Tribe, Stillaguamish Tribe of Indians, Quinault Tribe of Indians, Makah Indian Tribe, Lummi Indian Tribe, Quileute Indian Tribe, Hoh Tribe of Indians, Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakima Indian Nation, Upper Skagit River Tribe, Nisqually Indian Community of the Nisqually Reservation, and Puyallup Tribe of the Puyallup Reservation, intervenor-plaintiffs-appellants v. State of Washington, defendant-appellee, Thor C. Tollefson, director, Washington State Department of Fisheries; Carl Crouse, director, Washington Department of Game; and Washington State Game Commission, intervenor-defendants-appellees: on appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington: appellants' opening brief
Summary
Case summary: Tribes are entitled to continued access to traditional off-reservation fishing grounds, one-half total run of fish, and may regulate their members' fishing, while state may regulate Indian fishing rights only if necessary for conservation and if run cannot otherwise be preserved.
Year
1974
Type
Litigation
Publisher
[Native American Rights Fund?]
Place
[Boulder, Colo.?]
Mobil Oil Corporation et al., appellants, v. Local Boundary Commission of the State of Alaska et al., appellees: no. 1947
Title
Mobil Oil Corporation et al., appellants, v. Local Boundary Commission of the State of Alaska et al., appellees: no. 1947
Summary
Case summary: Court upheld decision that the incorporation of North Slope Borough was valid and met the geography standard.
Year
1974
Type
Litigation
Publisher
West Pub. Co.
Place
St. Paul
United States of America, plaintiff, Quinault Tribe of Indians on its own behalf and on behalf of the Queets Band of Indians, et al., intervenor-plaintiffs, v. State of Washington, defendant, Thor C. Tollefson, Director, Washington State Department of Fis
Title
United States of America, plaintiff, Quinault Tribe of Indians on its own behalf and on behalf of the Queets Band of Indians, et al., intervenor-plaintiffs, v. State of Washington, defendant, Thor C. Tollefson, Director, Washington State Department of Fisheries, et al., intervenor-defendants: civ. no. 9213
Summary
United States v. Washington, 384 F. Supp. 312 (W.D. Wash. 1974), was a 1974 court case that affirmed the right of most of the tribes in Washington to continue to harvest salmon. Case summary: Tribes are entitled to continued access to traditional off-reservation fishing grounds, one-half total run of fish, and may regulate their members' fishing, while state may regulate Indian fishing rights only if necessary for conservation and if run cannot otherwise be preserved.
Year
1974
Type
Litigation
Publisher
West Pub. Co.
Place
St. Paul
Joint Tribal Council of the Passamaquoddy Tribe et al., plaintiffs, v. Rogers C. B. Morton, Secretary, Department of the Interior, et al., defendants, and State of Maine, intervenor: civ. no. 1960
Title
Joint Tribal Council of the Passamaquoddy Tribe et al., plaintiffs, v. Rogers C. B. Morton, Secretary, Department of the Interior, et al., defendants, and State of Maine, intervenor: civ. no. 1960
Summary
Case summary: United States has trust obligation to enforce Indian land claim dormant for two centuries since the restriction against alienation imposed on Indian lands by the Indian Nonintercourse Act extends to aboriginal rights of "non-recognized" tribes located in original colonies.
Year
1975
Type
Litigation
Publisher
West Pub. Co.
Place
St. Paul
In the Supreme Court of the United States, October term, 1975, nos. 75-588, 75-592: State of Washington, et al., petitioners v. United States of America, Muckleshoot Indian Tribe, Squaxin Island Tribe of Indians, Sauk-Suiattle Indian Tribe, Skokomish Indi
Title
In the Supreme Court of the United States, October term, 1975, nos. 75-588, 75-592: State of Washington, et al., petitioners v. United States of America, Muckleshoot Indian Tribe, Squaxin Island Tribe of Indians, Sauk-Suiattle Indian Tribe, Skokomish Indian Tribe, Stillaguamish Tribe of Indians, Quinault Tribe of Indians, Makah Indian Tribe, Lummi Indian Tribe, Quileute Indian Tribe, Hoh Tribe of Indians, Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakima Indian Indian Nation, Upper Skagit River Tribe, Nisqually Indian Community of the Nisqually Reservation, and Puyallup Tribe of the Puyallup Reservation, respondents: and Northwest Steelheaders Council of Trout Unlimited, petitioner, v. United States of America, Muckleshoot Indian Tribe, Squaxin Island Tribe of Indians, Sauk-Suiattle Indian Tribe, Skokomish Indian Tribe, Stillaguamish Tribe of Indians, Quinault Tribe of Indians, Makah Indian Tribe, Lummi Indian Tribe, Quileute Indian Tribe, Hoh Tribe of Indians, Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakima Indian Indian Nation, Upper Skagit River Tribe, Nisqually Indian Community of the Nisqually Reservation, and Puyallup Tribe of the Puyallup Reservation, respondents: brief of respondent Indian tribes in opposition to petitions for writs of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Summary
Case summary: Tribes are entitled to continued access to traditional off-reservation fishing grounds, one-half total run of fish, and may regulate their members' fishing, while state may regulate Indian fishing rights only if necessary for conservation and if run cannot otherwise be preserved.
Year
1975
Type
Litigation
Publisher
Byron S. Adams Printing
Place
Washington, D.C.
In the Supreme Court of the United States, October term, 1975: no. 75-5366 : Alva Fisher, petitioner, v. State of Montana, ex rel, in the matter of the adoption of Ivan Firecrow, a minor by Leroy Runsabove and Josephine Runsabove, respondents: on petition
Title
In the Supreme Court of the United States, October term, 1975: no. 75-5366 : Alva Fisher, petitioner, v. State of Montana, ex rel, in the matter of the adoption of Ivan Firecrow, a minor by Leroy Runsabove and Josephine Runsabove, respondents: on petition for a writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of the State of Montana: motion and brief of Northern Cheyenne Indian Tribe as amicus curiae in support of the petition for a writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of the State of Montana
Summary
Case summary: The Montana Supreme Court held that the state court has jurisdiction over an adoption proceeding that arose on the Northern Cheyenne Indian Reservation and in which all parties are members of the Northern Cheyenne Tribe and residents of the Northern Cheyenne Indian Reservation. On appeal, the United States Supreme Court reversed that ruling and held that the Tribal Court of the Northern Cheyenne Tribe has exclusive jurisdiction over the adoption proceeding. Montana state-court jurisdiction over such a proceeding would interfere with the powers of self-government conferred upon the Tribe by federal law and exercised through the Tribal Court.
Year
1975
Type
Litigation
Publisher
Byron S. Adams Printing
Place
Washington, D.C.
In the Supreme Court of the United States, October term, 1977, no. 76-5729, Mark David Oliphant and Daniel B. Belgarde, petitioners, v. the Suquamish Indian Tribe, et al., respondents, on writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the ni
Title
In the Supreme Court of the United States, October term, 1977, no. 76-5729, Mark David Oliphant and Daniel B. Belgarde, petitioners, v. the Suquamish Indian Tribe, et al., respondents, on writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the ninth circuit: brief of amicus curiae, National American Indian Court Judges Association
Summary
Case summary: The US Supreme Court decision stated that Indian tribal courts do not have inherent criminal jurisdiction to try and to punish non-Indians for offenses committed on their reservations, and hence may not assume such jurisdiction unless specifically authorized to do so by treaty or statute.
Year
1977
Type
Litigation
Publisher
Craftsman Press
Place
Seattle
Indian courts and the future: appendix 2, discussion materials prepared for project advisory committee : report
Title
Indian courts and the future: appendix 2, discussion materials prepared for project advisory committee : report
Year
1978
Type
Publications
Publisher
National American Indian Court Judges Association
Place
[Washington, D.C.]
Indian courts and the future : appendix 1, compilation of findings from reservation surveys : report
Title
Indian courts and the future : appendix 1, compilation of findings from reservation surveys : report
Year
1978
Type
Publications
Publisher
National American Indian Court Judges Association
Place
[Washington, D.C.]
Indian courts and the future: report of the NAICJA Long Range Planning Project
Title
Indian courts and the future: report of the NAICJA Long Range Planning Project
Summary
Orville N. Olney, Project Director; David H. Getches, Project Planner/Coordinator.
Year
1978
Type
Publications
Publisher
National American Indian Court Judges Association
Place
[Washington]

Pages