About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline
LOG IN
LOG IN

12 ILR 1003 (1985)

handle is hein.amindian/indlr0012 and id is 1 raw text is: INDIAN LAW REPORTER UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT PROCEEDINGS (This section reprints entries appearing in the United States Law Week received prior to the 11th day of the month of each Indian Law Reporter issue. Current issues of Law Week should be consulted for corrections or more recent information.) Cases Docketed 84-943 Elvrum v. Williams 12/10/84, cert. CA 9 (742 F2d 549) Indians-inheritance of land on reservations-jurisdiction -appellate review. 53 U.S.L.W. 3485, Jan. 8, 1985 Subject Matter Summary of Cases Recently Filed 84-782 South Carolina v. Catawba Indian Tribe Land claims-immunity from statute of limitations. Ruling below (CA4, 740 F2d 305): Federal 1959 Catawba Indian Tribe Division of Assets Act did not extinguish Catawba Tribe's claims against South Car- olina; 1959 Act did not end trust relationship between tribe and federal government; federal Nonintercourse Act and supremacy clause preempt all state law defenses, including state statutes of limitations. Questions presented: (1) Are Catawba Indians immune from state statutes of limitation even though 1959 Catawba Indian Tribe Division of Assets Act explicitly provides that the laws of the several states shall apply to them in the same manner they apply to other persons? (2) May Catawba Indi- ans claim trust relationship with federal government, and thus assert claim under federal Nonintercourse Act, even though 1959 Act explicitly provides that the tribe and its members shall not be entitled to any of the special services performed by the United States for Indians and that federal Indian statutes shall not apply to them? (3) May Catawba Indians assert claim to land under federal law based solely on alleged absence of federal approval of voluntary sale of land, even though Congress implicitly ratified 1840 sale by passage of 1959 Act? Petition for certiorari filed 11/14/84, by John C. Christie, Jr., J. Wiliam Hayton, Stephen J. Landes, Lucinda 0. McConathy, and Bell, Boyd & Lloyd, all of Washington, D.C.; J.D. Todd, Jr., Michael J. Giese, Gwendolyn Embler, and Letherwood, Walker, Todd & Mann, all of Greenville, S.C.; Dan M. Byrd, Jr., Mitchell K. Byrd, and Byrd & Byrd, all of Rock Hill, S.C.; James D. St. Clair, P.C., James L. Quarles, III, William F. Lee, David H. Erichsen, and Hale and Dorr, all of Boston, Mass.; and T. Travis Medlock, S.C. Atty. Gen., and Kenneth P. Woodington, Asst. Atty. Gen., both of Columbia, S.C. 53 U.S.L.W. 3515, Jan. 15, 1985 84-875 Arizona Public Service Company v. Salt River Pima- Maricopa Indian Community Cancellation of contract for water from project-Indian community's standing. Ruling below (CA9, 9/4/84, unpublished): Indian community has standing, in action against Interior Department alleging discrimination in diverting of water from federal water project and alleging Interior Department violated Warren Act, to assert challenge to validity of con- tracts for delivery of water from federal water project on grounds that contracts violated Warren Act, which prohibits export of project water unless water needs of all lands within project are first met, as community alleged that it is not receiving sufficient water from project to satisfy its needs, thus establishing causal link between challenged contracts and right to receive water from project. Questions presented: (1) Does Indian community have standing to pursue, in connection with its claims to partici- pate in and receive water from Salt River Project, an indepen- dent claim for cancellation of contract, not involving delivery of water from Salt River Project, but rather delivery by vari- ous municipalities of effluent produced at municipal waste water treatment plants for use as cooling water at nearby nuclear power generating facility? (2) Do Fed. R. Civ. P. 18(b) and 19(a) operate to eliminate or dilute traditional standard requirements when plaintiff seeks to assert and pur- sue, under Rule 18(b), additional claims against indispensable parties joined under Rule 19(a)? Petition for certiorari filed 12/3/84, by Daniel J. McAuliffe, John J. Bouma, Robert B. Hoffman, Kimberly J. Graber, and Snell & Wilmer, all of Phoenix, Ariz. 53 U.S.L.W. 3519, Jan. 15, 1985 84-943 Elvrum v. Williams Inheritance of land on reservations-jurisdiction-appel- late review. Ruling below (CA9, 742 F2d 549): Congressional designation of Quinault Tribe as proper party to litigate boundary dispute on Quinault Reservation, and exercise of control over lands by Quinault Tribal Council did not abrogate Treaty of Olympia, under which Quileute Indians share property rights over lands located on reserva- tion of Quinault Indian Tribe; accordingly, member of Quileute Indian Tribe is permissible devisee of land located on Quinault Indian Reservation; appeal requires interpreta- tion of statutory and treaty language, and thus is subject to de novo review. Questions presented: (1) Is Secretary of Interior's decision to recognize a tribal government as political entity exercising jurisdiction over Indian reservation subject to de novo review by federal court? (2) Is Quinault Indian Nation political entity exercising jurisdiction over Quinault Indian Reserva- tion, as formally recognized by Secretary of Interior, acknowledged by Congress, and confirmed by Interior Board of Indian Appeals, or do Quinault Indian Nation and Quileute Indian Tribe and perhaps other tribes exercise unde - fined joint jurisdiction over Quinault Reservation, as held by Court of Appeals for Ninth Circuit? Petition for certiorari filed 12/10/84, by MacDonald, Hoague & Bayless and Frederick L. Noland, both of Seattle, Wash. 53 U.S.L.W. 3536, Jan. 22, 1985 Review Denied 84-709 Buxbom v. Naegele Outdoor Advertising Co. of Cal- ifornia, Inc. Ruling below (U.S. ex rel. Buxbom v. Naegele Outdoor Advertising Co., Inc., CA9, 739 F2d 473): Subsequent retroactive approval by Bureau of Indian Affairs of advertising contract with Indians, after court declared it void for failure to obtain BIA approval, was proper; accordingly, party challenging contract may not col- lect penalty specified in 25 U.S.C. § 81. 53 U.S.L.W. 3474, Jan. 8, 1985 February 1985 12 ILR 1003

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.



Contact us for annual subscription options:

Contact Us

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

Log In

profiles profiles most