You are here
Litigation
Description
In collections
(1 - 20 of 80)
Pages
-
- 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
-
-
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
Show moreUnited 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.
Extract from the Federal supplement, v. 384
Show less - Created Date
- 2017-11-17T22:17:54.217Z
- Library/Archive
- info:fedora/getches:litigation
-
- In the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit: no. 24306 : Alex Scholder, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated; Pala Band of Mission Indians and Rincon Band of Mission Indians, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, appellants, vs. United States of America; Department of the Interior; Bureau of Indian Affairs; Stewart L. Udall, Secretary of the Interior; Robert L. Bennett, Commissioner, Bureau of Indian Affairs; William E. Finale, Director, Sacramento Office, Bureau of Indian Affairs; and Jess T. Town, Field Representative, Riverside, California area field office, Bureau of Indian Affairs, appellees: appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California: opening brief of appellants
-
-
Case summary: Class action suit brought by individual Indians and Indian bands to stop the Secretary of the Interior and the Bureau of Indian Affairs
Show moreCase summary: Class action suit brought by individual Indians and Indian bands to stop the Secretary of the Interior and the Bureau of Indian Affairs from spending Pala Indian Irrigation Project funds for the benefit of a non-Indian owner of land situated within the Indian irrigation district. The Court of Appeals affirmed in part and reversed in part the District Court's holding regarding spending of Indian irrigation project funds for benefit of non-Indian land owner within the project. The Court of Appeals reaffirmed the expenditure by the Secretary of Interior and Bureau of Indian Affairs was not an unconstitutional taking under applicable federal laws and remanded the Indian's claim as to the validity of reimbursement charges.
Show less - Created Date
- 2017-11-17T22:10:41.059Z
- Library/Archive
- info:fedora/getches:litigation
-
- Alex Scholder, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Pala Band of Mission Indians and Rincon Band of Mission Indians, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, appellants, v. United States of America, Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Stewart L. Udall, Secretary of the Interior, Robert L. Bennett, Commissioner, Bureau of Indian Affairs, William E. Finale, Director, Sacramento Office, Bureau of Indian Affairs, and Jess T. Town, Field Representative, Riverside, California area field office, Bureau of Indian Affairs, appellees: no. 24306
-
-
Case summary: Class action suit brought by individual Indians and Indian bands to stop the Secretary of the Interior and the Bureau of Indian Affairs
Show moreCase summary: Class action suit brought by individual Indians and Indian bands to stop the Secretary of the Interior and the Bureau of Indian Affairs from spending Pala Indian Irrigation Project funds for the benefit of a non-Indian owner of land situated within the Indian irrigation district. The Court of Appeals affirmed in part and reversed in part the District Court's holding regarding spending of Indian irrigation project funds for benefit of non-Indian land owner within the project. The Court of Appeals reaffirmed the expenditure by the Secretary of Interior and Bureau of Indian Affairs was not an unconstitutional taking under applicable federal laws and remanded the Indian's claim as to the validity of reimbursement charges.
Extract from the Federal reporter, 2nd series, v. 428
Show less - Created Date
- 2017-11-17T22:01:50.498Z
- Library/Archive
- info:fedora/getches:litigation
![United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit: no. [blank] : Sandia Pueblo; San Felipe Pueblo; Santa Ana Pueblo; Santo Domingo Pueblo; Michael Pacheco by Paul Pacheco, his next friend, Ida Naranjo by Marie Naranjo her next friend, and Hazel Guiterrez by Ma](http://lawcollections.colorado.edu/sites/default/files/styles/islandora_imagecache_image_style_medium/public/externals/beac8bd8e58df3e4069477d21ba05895.jpg?itok=vOsAmjxz&pid=getches:146&iic=true)
-
- 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
-
-
Case summary: Tribes are entitled to continued access to traditional off-reservation fishing grounds, one-half total run of fish, and may regulate the
Show moreCase 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.
Show less - Created Date
- 2017-11-17T21:49:21.166Z
- Library/Archive
- info:fedora/getches:litigation
-
- 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
-
-
Case summary: The US Supreme Court decision stated that Indian tribal courts do not have inherent criminal jurisdiction to try and to punish non-India
Show moreCase 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.
Show less - Created Date
- 2017-11-17T21:42:47.436Z
- Library/Archive
- info:fedora/getches:litigation
-
- L.V. Knudson, petitioner, v. The Superior Court of San Diego County, respondent; Dewey H. Bandy et al., real parties in interest: civ. no. 9370
-
-
Case summary: Petitioner filed a writ of mandate to require the appellate department of the Superior Court of San Diego County to hear and rule on app
Show moreCase summary: Petitioner filed a writ of mandate to require the appellate department of the Superior Court of San Diego County to hear and rule on appeals by petitioner from judgments issued in the absence of petitioner and his counsel. The Court of Appeal held the appeals were timely filed under Rule 123(b) of the California Rules of Court and the Superior Court's motion to dismiss the appeals due to untimely filing was improper.
Case reprinted from Westlaw database
Show less - Created Date
- 2017-11-17T21:26:43.678Z
- Library/Archive
- info:fedora/getches:litigation
-
- In the Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, State of California: no. 4 - civil 9370 : L.V. Knudson, petitioner vs. the Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Diego, respondent, and Dewey H. Bandy, individually and dba Bandy's Campsters, and Great American Insurance Company, a corporation, real parties in interest: points and authorities in opposition to petition for writ of mandate
-
-
Case summary: Petitioner filed a writ of mandate to require the appellate department of the Superior Court of San Diego County to hear and rule on app
Show moreCase summary: Petitioner filed a writ of mandate to require the appellate department of the Superior Court of San Diego County to hear and rule on appeals by petitioner from judgments issued in the absence of petitioner and his counsel. The Court of Appeal held the appeals were timely filed under Rule 123(b) of the California Rules of Court and the Superior Court's motion to dismiss the appeals due to untimely filing was improper.
Show less - Created Date
- 2017-11-17T21:23:17.252Z
- Library/Archive
- info:fedora/getches:litigation
-
- Alex Scholder, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, plaintiffs, v. United States of America; Department of the Interior; Bureau of Indian Affairs; Stewart L. Udall, Secretary of the Interior; Robert L. Bennett, Commissioner, Bureau of Indian Affairs; William E. Finale, Director, Sacramento Office, Bureau of Indian Affairs; and Jess T. Town, Field Representative, Riverside, California area field office, Bureau of Indian Affairs, defendants: no. 68-224-S
-
-
Case summary: Class action suit brought by individual Indians and Indian bands to stop the Secretary of the Interior and the Bureau of Indian Affairs
Show moreCase summary: Class action suit brought by individual Indians and Indian bands to stop the Secretary of the Interior and the Bureau of Indian Affairs from spending Pala Indian Irrigation Project funds for the benefit of a non-Indian owner of land situated within the Indian irrigation district. The District Court denied plaintiffs' motion. The court held the expenditure was not an unconstitutional taking under applicable federal laws.
Extract from the Federal supplement, v. 298
Show less - Created Date
- 2017-11-17T21:20:14.765Z
- Library/Archive
- info:fedora/getches:litigation
![In the Supreme Court of the United States: October term, 1970 : no. [blank] : Alex Scholder, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated; Pala Band of Mission Indians and Rincon Band of Mission Indians, individually and on behalf of others sim](http://lawcollections.colorado.edu/sites/default/files/styles/islandora_imagecache_image_style_medium/public/externals/75f731c4a326c3954c441f0c5e9331f5.jpg?itok=SPMh9pC8&pid=getches:140&iic=true)
-
- In the Supreme Court of the United States: October term, 1970 : no. [blank] : Alex Scholder, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated; Pala Band of Mission Indians and Rincon Band of Mission Indians, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, petitioners, v. United States of America; Department of the Interior; Bureau of Indian Affairs; Stewart L. Udall, Secretary of the Interior; Robert L. Bennett, Commissioner, Bureau of Indian Affairs; William E. Finale, Director, Sacramento Office, Bureau of Indian Affairs; and Jess T. Town, Field Representative, Riverside, California area field office, Bureau of Indian Affairs, respondents: petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
-
-
Case summary: Class action suit brought by individual Indians and Indian bands to stop the Secretary of the Interior and the Bureau of Indian Affairs
Show moreCase summary: Class action suit brought by individual Indians and Indian bands to stop the Secretary of the Interior and the Bureau of Indian Affairs from spending Pala Indian Irrigation Project funds for the benefit of a non-Indian owner of land situated within the Indian irrigation district. The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed in part and reversed in part the United States Court for the District of Southern California's holding regarding spending of Indian irrigation project funds for benefit of non-Indian land owner within the project. The Court of Appeals reaffirmed the expenditure by the Secretary of Interior and Bureau of Indian Affairs was not an unconstitutional taking under applicable federal laws and remanded the Indian's claim as to the validity of reimbursement charges. The United States Supreme Court ruled that use of Indian irrigation project funds for benefit of non-Indian land owner within project was allowable under applicable federal laws.
Show less - Created Date
- 2017-11-17T21:16:54.595Z
- Library/Archive
- info:fedora/getches:litigation
-
- In the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit: no. 24156 : United States of America, appellee, vs. Alpine Land & Reservoir Company, et al., appellees, Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe, appellent-applicant for intervention: appeal from the United States District Court for the District Court of Nevada: appellant's petition for rehearing
-
-
Case summary: Court denies tribe's motion to intervene in action by the government to quiet title to rights to water for a federal reclamation project
Show moreCase summary: Court denies tribe's motion to intervene in action by the government to quiet title to rights to water for a federal reclamation project, and court later holds that water rights of federal reclamation project are not limited by virtue of state law or contracts between Secretary of Interior and project water users.
Show less - Created Date
- 2017-11-17T21:05:09.943Z
- Library/Archive
- info:fedora/getches:litigation
-
- In the Supreme Court of the United States, October term, 1971: no. 71-293: Wayne Goham, petitioner, vs. State of Nebraska, respondent: brief of Native American Rights Fund as amicus curiae in support of a petition for a writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of the State of Nebraska
-
-
Case summary: Indian's habeas corpus petition following conviction by Nebraska for rape of non-Indian on reservation of the Omaha Tribe of Nebraska, c
Show moreCase summary: Indian's habeas corpus petition following conviction by Nebraska for rape of non-Indian on reservation of the Omaha Tribe of Nebraska, challenged on basis that Nebraska had retroceeded criminal jurisdiction over the reservation, is denied.
Show less - Created Date
- 2017-11-17T21:01:08.215Z
- Library/Archive
- info:fedora/getches:litigation
-
- Kathleen Ramos, a minor, by her mother Marcella Mason, as next friend, Marcella Mason, individually, and on behalf of three other minor children residing with her, and Della Morales, individually, plaintiffs, v. John C. Montgomery, individually, and as director of the Department of Social Welfare of the State of California, and H.E. Detrich, individually, and as director of the Department of Social Welfare for the County of San Diego, California, defendants : no. 69-259-K
-
-
Case summary: Dismissal of suit to compel State Welfare Department to make AFDC payments to natural parents equal to that given to foster parents.
- Created Date
- 2017-11-17T20:55:31.645Z
- Library/Archive
- info:fedora/getches:litigation
-
- In the Supreme Court of the United States, October term, 1970, no. 5912: Kathleen Ramos, a minor, by her mother Marcella Mason, as next friend; Marcella Mason, individually, and on behalf of three other minor children residing with her; and Della Morales, individually, appellants, vs. John C. Montgomery, individually, and as Director of the Department of Social Welfare of the State of California; and H. E. Detrich, individually, and as Director of the Department of Social Welfare for the County of San Diego, California, appellees: on appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California: jurisdictional statement
-
-
Case summary: Supreme Court affirmed Federal Court's dismissal of a suit to compel State Welfare Department to make AFDC payments to natural parents e
Show moreCase summary: Supreme Court affirmed Federal Court's dismissal of a suit to compel State Welfare Department to make AFDC payments to natural parents equal to that given to foster parents.
Show less - Created Date
- 2017-11-17T20:52:13.159Z
- Library/Archive
- info:fedora/getches:litigation
-
- United States of America, appellee, v. 687.30 acres of land, more or less, situate in Dakota and Thurston counties, state of Nebraska, et al., appellants: United States of America, appellee, v. 210.43 acres of land, more or less, situate in Woodbury County, Iowa, et al., appellants: United States of America, appellee, v. 1,716.18 acres of land, more or less, situate in Woodbury and Monona counties, Iowa, et al., appellants: nos. 71-1122, 71-1345
-
-
Case summary: Suit by Winnebago Tribe of Nebraska contends that congressional legislation enabling condemnation of tribal land for federal water proje
Show moreCase summary: Suit by Winnebago Tribe of Nebraska contends that congressional legislation enabling condemnation of tribal land for federal water project failed to manifest requisite intent to abrogate treaty rights. Court holds that orders denying tribe's request for relief were not appealable.
Extract from the Federal reporter, 2nd series, v. 451
Show less - Created Date
- 2017-11-17T20:48:27.551Z
- Library/Archive
- info:fedora/getches:litigation
-
- State of New Mexico, plaintiff-appellee, v. Robert Dan Pedro, defendant-appellant: no. 660
-
-
Case summary: Conviction of Indian for possession of peyote dismissed since New Mexico state statute requires intent to be element of the crime.
Extrac
Show moreCase summary: Conviction of Indian for possession of peyote dismissed since New Mexico state statute requires intent to be element of the crime.
Extract from the Pacific reporter, 2nd series, v. 490
Show less - Created Date
- 2017-11-17T20:42:39.257Z
- Library/Archive
- info:fedora/getches:litigation
-
- In the Court of Appeals of the State of New Mexico: State of New Mexico, plaintiff-appellee, v. Robert Dan Pedro, defendant-appellant: appeal from the District Court of Chaves County, George L. Reese, Jr., judge: appellant's reply brief
-
-
Case summary: Conviction of Indian for possession of peyote dismissed since New Mexico state statute requires intent to be element of the crime.
- Created Date
- 2017-11-17T20:36:14.436Z
- Library/Archive
- info:fedora/getches:litigation
-
- The Agua Caliente Band of Mission Indians, by and through its tribal council, et al., appellants v. the County of Riverside, a political subdivision of the State of California, appellees: no. 25298
-
-
Case summary: California possessory interest tax could be imposed on lessees of Indian land absent legislation demonstrating a congressional purpose t
Show moreCase summary: California possessory interest tax could be imposed on lessees of Indian land absent legislation demonstrating a congressional purpose to forbid imposition of the tax.
Extract from the Federal reporter, 2nd series, v. 442
Show less - Created Date
- 2017-11-17T20:32:30.704Z
- Library/Archive
- info:fedora/getches:litigation
-
- In the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit: the Agua Caliente Band of Mission Indians, by and through its tribal council, et al., appellants, v. The County of Riverside, a political subdivision of the state of California, appellee: appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California: brief of amicus curiae
-
-
Case summary: Possessory interest tax could be imposed on lesses of Indian land absent legislation demonstrating a congressional purpose to forbid imp
Show moreCase summary: Possessory interest tax could be imposed on lesses of Indian land absent legislation demonstrating a congressional purpose to forbid imposition of tax.
Show less - Created Date
- 2017-11-17T20:23:16.319Z
- Library/Archive
- info:fedora/getches:litigation