Litigation

Description

Bookmarks:

1 to 20 of 80 Objects

In collections

(1 - 20 of 80)

Pages

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
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
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 In
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
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
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
Ammoneta Sequoyah, Richard Crowe, Gilliam Jackson, individually and representing other Cherokee Indians similarly situated; the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians; and the United Ketooah Band of Cherokee Indians, appellants, v. Tennessee Valley Authority, a
Ammoneta Sequoyah, Richard Crowe, Gilliam Jackson, individually and representing other Cherokee Indians similarly situated; the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians; and the United Ketooah Band of Cherokee Indians, appellants, v. Tennessee Valley Authority, appellee: no. 79-1633
Case summary: Indians' suit to prevent flooding of sacred sites by Tellico Dam is dismissed because of failure to prove centrality or indispensability
Show moreCase summary: Indians' suit to prevent flooding of sacred sites by Tellico Dam is dismissed because of failure to prove centrality or indispensability of Little Tennessee River Valley to Cherokee religion.
Extract from the Federal reporter, 2nd series, v. 620
Show less
Created Date
2017-11-17T14:28:48.21Z
Library/Archive
info:fedora/getches:litigation
Answer brief of appellee and cross-appellant Rainbow Services, Inc. : in the matter of the application for water rights of the Board of County Commissioners of the County of Arapahoe, in Gunnison County: The Board of County Commissioners of the County of
Answer brief of appellee and cross-appellant Rainbow Services, Inc. : in the matter of the application for water rights of the Board of County Commissioners of the County of Arapahoe, in Gunnison County: The Board of County Commissioners of the County of Arapahoe, applicant-appellant/cross-appellee, v. United States of America; Crystal Creek Homeowners Association and Ernest H. Cockrell; Colorado Wildlife Federation; Gunnison Angling Society; High Country Citizens' Alliance; National Wildlife Federation; Rainbow Services, Inc. and Western Colorado Congress; and Upper Gunnison River Water Conservancy District; and Board of County Commissioners of Gunnison County, Colorado, objector-appellees/cross-appellants, v. Colorado River Water Conservation District; Henry J. Berryhill, Jr.; City of Delta; City of Montrose; City of Grand Junction; City of Gunnison; Tri-state Generation and Transmission Association, Inc.; Crested Butte Water and Sanitation District; Perkins D. Sams; East River at Almont Property Owners Association; Gunnison County Electric Association; Murdie Homeowners' Association, Inc.; Mr. and Mrs. Charles Reeder; Virgil and Lee Spann Ranches, Inc.; State Engineer; State Board of Land Commissioners; Three Rivers Resort, Inc.; Uncompahgre Valley Water Users Association; Joseph P. Vader, Raymond P. Van Tuyl, Charles Richard Collard, Thomas E. Collard and Taylor Park Pool Association; and Wapiti Canyon Ranch, Ltd., objector-appellees, and Keith Kepler, division engineer, Water Division 4, appellee pursuant to C.A.R. 1(e)
Respectfully submitted this 7th day of January, 1994, Bruce C. Driver, David H. Getches, Roger Flynn.
Created Date
2017-11-16T21:54:54.533Z
Library/Archive
info:fedora/getches:litigation
Arnold Davis and Wilbur Davis, appellants, v. Warden, Nevada State Prison, respondent: no. 6745
Arnold Davis and Wilbur Davis, appellants, v. Warden, Nevada State Prison, respondent: no. 6745
Case summary: State lacked jurisdiction to convict appellants, enrolled members of the Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe of Indians, for attempted murder of n
Show moreCase summary: State lacked jurisdiction to convict appellants, enrolled members of the Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe of Indians, for attempted murder of non-Indian since action occurred within the Pyramid Lake Indian Reservation, which has been excluded from state's jurisdiction.
Extract from the Pacific reporter, 2nd series, v. 498
Show less
Created Date
2017-11-17T18:41:40.927Z
Library/Archive
info:fedora/getches:litigation
City of Williams, et al., plaintiffs, v. Michael Dombeck, et al., defendants: civ.a. no. 00-0066(CKK)
City of Williams, et al., plaintiffs, v. Michael Dombeck, et al., defendants: civ.a. no. 00-0066(CKK)
Case summary: The United States District Court for the District of Columbia denied plaintiffs' motion to amend its complaint against the United States
Show moreCase summary: The United States District Court for the District of Columbia denied plaintiffs' motion to amend its complaint against the United States Forest Service alleging violations of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) and the Federal Land Policy and Exchange Management Act (FLPMA). The Court found plaintiffs' proposed amendments to the complaint were not warranted and would unduly prejudice the defendants because of the untimeliness of the amendments and the addition of tangentially related claims.
Extract from the Federal rules decisions, v. 203
Show less
Created Date
2017-11-16T20:13:09.409Z
Library/Archive
info:fedora/getches:litigation
City of Williams, et al., plaintiffs, v. Michael Dombeck, et al., defendants: no. civ.a. 00-0066 CKK
City of Williams, et al., plaintiffs, v. Michael Dombeck, et al., defendants: no. civ.a. 00-0066 CKK
Case summary: The District Court granted in part and denied in part plaintiffs' claims against the United States Forest Services' decisions to approve
Show moreCase summary: The District Court granted in part and denied in part plaintiffs' claims against the United States Forest Services' decisions to approve land exchanges near the Grand Canyon. Plaintiffs' claims allege violations of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) and the Federal Land Policy and Exchange Management Act (FLPMA). The court dismissed plaintiff's claims in violation of FLPMA as unripe because the Forest Service's decision to exchange land is dependent on title transfer and rezoning, neither of which have occurred or are imminent. The Court granted defendants summary judgment as to violation of NEPA stipulated in counts IV, V, and VII of plaintiffs' complaint and granted plaintiffs summary judgment as to violation of NEPA stipulated in count III of its complaint.
Extract from the Federal supplement, 2nd series, v. 151
Show less
Created Date
2017-11-16T20:10:39.503Z
Library/Archive
info:fedora/getches:litigation
Dan Andrade (1) and Joe Carrillo (2), individually, and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated v. The United States: Pitt River Tribe et al. v. The United States: nos. 347-72, 47-73
Dan Andrade (1) and Joe Carrillo (2), individually, and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated v. The United States: Pitt River Tribe et al. v. The United States: nos. 347-72, 47-73
Case summary: The Court of Claims held the action filed attempting to overturn the 1964 judgement of the Indian Claims Commission was barred by the st
Show moreCase summary: The Court of Claims held the action filed attempting to overturn the 1964 judgement of the Indian Claims Commission was barred by the statute of limitations and laches due to inaction for eight years after the cause of action was known. The court also held that the claims pertaining to the 1968 Act of Congress setting up a Roll of Indians to share in a settlement were inadequately briefed.
Extract from the Federal reporter, 2nd series, v. 485
Show less
Created Date
2017-11-17T18:31:28.863Z
Library/Archive
info:fedora/getches:litigation
Hotel Employees & Restaurant Employees International Union, petitioner, v. Gray Davis, as Governor, etc., et al., respondents; Frank Lawrence, real party in interest: Eric Cortez et al., petitioners, v. Gray Davis, as Governor, etc., respondent: Frank Law
Hotel Employees & Restaurant Employees International Union, petitioner, v. Gray Davis, as Governor, etc., et al., respondents; Frank Lawrence, real party in interest: Eric Cortez et al., petitioners, v. Gray Davis, as Governor, etc., respondent: Frank Lawrence et al., real parties in interest: nos. S074850, S074851
Case summary: The Supreme Court of California issued a peremptory writ of mandate prohibiting the Governor and the Secretary of the State of Californi
Show moreCase summary: The Supreme Court of California issued a peremptory writ of mandate prohibiting the Governor and the Secretary of the State of California from implementing Proposition 5, an initiative that would add a section to the government code detailing tribal-state compacts for gaming and gambling in the state. The Court held all but the last sentence of Proposition 5 was invalid because it was inconsistent with the anti-casino provision of California's Constitution.
Extract from the Pacific Reporter, 2nd series, v. 981
Show less
Created Date
2017-11-16T20:19:30.276Z
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 Camp
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
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
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
In the matter of the application for water rights of the Board of County Commissioners of the County of Arapahoe, in Gunnison County. The Board of County Commissioners of the County of Arapahoe, applicant-appellant/cross-appellee, v. United States of Amer
In the matter of the application for water rights of the Board of County Commissioners of the County of Arapahoe, in Gunnison County. The Board of County Commissioners of the County of Arapahoe, applicant-appellant/cross-appellee, v. United States of America; Crystal Creek Homeowners Association and Ernest H. Cockrell; Colorado Wildlife Federation, Gunnison Angling Society, High Country Citizens' Alliance, National Wildlife Federation, Rainbow Services, Inc. and Western Colorado Congress; and Upper Gunnison River Water Conservancy District and Board of County Commissioners of Gunnison County, Colorado, objector-appellees/cross-appellants, v. Colorado River Water Conservation District; Henry J. Berryhill, Jr.; City of Delta; City of Montrose; City of Grand Junction; City of Gunnison; Tri-State Generation and Transmission Association, Inc. Crested Butte Water and Sanitation District; Perkins D. Sams; East River at Almont Property Owners Association; Gunnison County Electric Association; Murdie Homeowners' Association, Inc.; Mr. and Mrs. Charles Reeder; Vrigil and Lee Spann Ranches, Inc.; State Engineer; State Board of Land Commissioners; Three Rivers Resort, Inc.; Uncompahgre Valley Water Users Association; Joseph P. Vader, Raymond P. Van Tuyl, Charles Richard Collard, Thomas E. Collard and Taylor Park Pool Association; and Wapiti Canyon Ranch, Ltd., objector-appellees, and Keith Kepler, Division Engineer, Water Division 4, appellee pursuant to C.A.R. 1(e) : no. 92SA68
Case summary: Supreme Court of Colorado held the National Energy Resources Company (NECO) did not form the requisite intent to appropriate water prior
Show moreCase summary: Supreme Court of Colorado held the National Energy Resources Company (NECO) did not form the requisite intent to appropriate water prior to applying for conditional water right decree, thus making the water right application that was subsequently purchased by the Board of County Commissioners for Arapahoe County speculative. The Supreme Court also held the trial court was not required to consider environmental factors in determining whether Arapahoe County proved the water would be put to good use.
Extract from the Pacific Reporter, 2nd series, v. 891
Show less
Created Date
2017-11-16T21:26:13.557Z
Library/Archive
info:fedora/getches:litigation
In the Supreme Court for the State of Alaska: Mobil Oil Corporation, et al, petitioners, vs Local Boundary Commission, et al, and Arctic Slope Native Association, et al, respondent: no. [blank]
In the Supreme Court for the State of Alaska: Mobil Oil Corporation, et al, petitioners, vs Local Boundary Commission, et al, and Arctic Slope Native Association, et al, respondent: no. [blank]: brief of respondents
Case Summary: Court upheld decision that the incorporation of North Slope Borough was valid and met the geography standard.
Created Date
2017-11-17T16:11:31.529Z
Library/Archive
info:fedora/getches:litigation
In the Supreme Court of the United States: no.70-78: Affiliated Ute Citizens of the State of Utah, et al., petitioners v. United States of America, respondent ; Anita Reyos, et al., petitioners v. First Security Bank of Utah, N.A., United States of Americ
In the Supreme Court of the United States: no.70-78: Affiliated Ute Citizens of the State of Utah, et al., petitioners v. United States of America, respondent ; Anita Reyos, et al., petitioners v. First Security Bank of Utah, N.A., United States of America, et al., respondents: motion for leave to file brief as amicus curiae and brief of the Native American Rights Fund, as amicus curiae
Case summary: Under the Ute Termination Act, once Secretary of Interior issued proclamation of termination the United States no longer owed any trust
Show moreCase summary: Under the Ute Termination Act, once Secretary of Interior issued proclamation of termination the United States no longer owed any trust duty or responsibility to the mixed blood members of the Ute Tribe.
Show less
Created Date
2017-11-17T19:15:31.156Z
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
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 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,
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
In the Supreme Court of the United States, October term, 1971, no. 71-1031: Leonard Tonasket, appellant v. the State of Washington and the supervisor of the Tax Commission of the State of Washington, appellees
In the Supreme Court of the United States, October term, 1971, no. 71-1031: Leonard Tonasket, appellant v. the State of Washington and the supervisor of the Tax Commission of the State of Washington, appellees: brief of Native American Rights Fund as amicus curiae in support of the appellant
Opinion: State which has assumed civil and criminal jurisdiction over Indian reservation has authority to tax retail sale of cigarettes by tribally-li
Show moreOpinion: State which has assumed civil and criminal jurisdiction over Indian reservation has authority to tax retail sale of cigarettes by tribally-licensed Indian store to non-Indian.
Show less
Created Date
2017-11-17T19:56:34.839Z
Library/Archive
info:fedora/getches:litigation
In the Supreme Court of the United States, October term, 1971, no. 71-183: the Agua Caliente Band of Mission Indians, by and through its tribal council, and Dora Joyce Prieto, Priscilla Gonzales, Gloria Gillettee, Patrick Patencio and Lawrence Pierce, all
In the Supreme Court of the United States, October term, 1971, no. 71-183: the Agua Caliente Band of Mission Indians, by and through its tribal council, and Dora Joyce Prieto, Priscilla Gonzales, Gloria Gillettee, Patrick Patencio and Lawrence Pierce, allottees, individually and in class action, on behalf of all allottees of allotted land on the Agua Caliente Band of Mission Indians reservation, petitioners, v. The County of Riverside, a political subdivision of the state of California, respondents: brief of Native American Rights Fund, California Indian Legal Services, Dinebeiina Nahiilna be Agaditahe, as amici curiae in support of the petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
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
2017-11-17T20:17:56.72Z
Library/Archive
info:fedora/getches:litigation
In the Supreme Court of the United States, October term, 1971, no. 71-183: the Agua Caliente Band of Mission Indians, by and through its tribal council, and Dora Joyce Prieto, Priscilla Gonzales, Gloria Gillettee, Patrick Patencio and Lawrence Pierce, all
In the Supreme Court of the United States, October term, 1971, no. 71-183: the Agua Caliente Band of Mission Indians, by and through its tribal council, and Dora Joyce Prieto, Priscilla Gonzales, Gloria Gillettee, Patrick Patencio and Lawrence Pierce, allottees, individually and in class action, on behalf of all allottees of allotted land on the Agua Caliente Band of Mission Indians reservation, petitioners, v. The County of Riverside, a political subdivision of the state of California, respondents: reply of Native American Rights Fund, California Indian Legal Services, Dinebeiina Nahiilna be Agaditahe, and Association on American Indian Affairs, Inc., as amici curiae to memorandum for the United States
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
2017-11-17T20:13:20.459Z
Library/Archive
info:fedora/getches:litigation

Pages