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

13 ILR 1001 (1986)

handle is hein.amindian/indlr0013 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 Pith 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 85-945 Oglala Sioux Tribe of the Pine Ridge Indian Reser- vation v. South Dakota 11/13/85, cert, CA 8 (770 F2d 730). Indians-reservation lands-counties-federal preemp- tion-taxation. 54 U.S.L.W. 3412, Dec. 17, 1985 85-949 St. Regis Mohawk Tribe, New York v. Brock 12/2/85, cert., CA 2 (759 F2d 38). Labor-Comprehensive Employment and Training Act- unlawful use of funds-repayments. 54 U.S.L.W. 3412, Dec. 17, 1985 Subject Matter Summary of Cases Recently Filed 85-615 California Department of Transportation v. Naegele Outdoor Advertising Co. of California Billboards-state regulation-Indian lands-federal pre- emption. Ruling below (Calif SupCt, 38 Cal3d 509, 698 P2d 150, 213 CalRptr 247): Provisions of California's Outdoor Advertising Act that provide for restrictions on outdoor advertising consonant with provisions of federal Highway Beautification Act may not be applied to billboards located upon Indian lands; state may not enforce provisions of federal Highway Beautifica- tion Act against billboards located on Indian lands. Questions presented: (1) Does California have inherent power to regulate outdoor advertising signs located on Indian lands but facing interstate highway, and thus impacting safety and aesthetics of public using the highway? (2) If Cali- fornia has power to regulate outdoor advertising signs located on Indian lands and facing state highway, has power been preempted by Highway Beautification Act. Petition for certiorari filed 10/8/85, by Charles E. Spencer Jr., Calif. Dept. Transportation Atty., and Gordon S. Baca, Acting Chief Counsel. 54 U.S.L.W. 3380, Dec. 3, 1985 85-637 Hodel v. Irving Indian Lands Conservation Act-takings clause-Indian Land Consolidation Act. Ruling below (Irving v. Clark, CA8, 758 F2d 1260): Provision in 1983 Indian Lands Consolidation Act, 25 U.S.C. § 2206, which provides de minimis shares of land allotted in trust to individual members of Oglala Sioux Tribe may not pass by intestacy or devise but instead escheat to that tribe, does not provide for compensation to estates of dece- dents for land it declares to escheat, and thus violates fifth amendment; section 2206 is unconsitutional as written when asserted against designated heirs and devisees of deceased tribe members, and as amended insofar as new provision pre- serves language of old provision. Questions presented: (1) Does section 207 of 1983 Indian Land Consolidation Act, 25 U.S.C. § 2206, which provides that certain de minimis undivided fractional interests held by individual Indian in trust or restricted allotments shall not descend by intestacy or devise, but instead shall escheat to tribe, result in taking of private property without payment of just compensation in violation of fifth amendment? (2) Did court of appeals err in holding that section 207, as amended in 1984, also is unconstitutional even though amended ver- sion does not apply to any of interests in allotments covered by appellees' decedents? Appeal filed 10/15/85, by Charles Fried, Sol. Gen., F. Henry Habicht II, Asst. Atty. Gen., Louis F. Claiborne, Dpty. Sol. Gen., Edwin S. Kneedler, Asst. to Sol. Gen., Anne S. Almy, and Blake A. Watson, Justice Dept. Attys. 54 U.S.L.W. 3380-81, Dec. 3, 1985 85-639 Desert Outdoor Advertising, Inc. v. Naegele Out- door Advertising Co. of California, Inc. Billboards-state regulation-Indian lands-federal pre- emption. Ruling below (California v. Naegle Outdoor Advertising Co. of California, Inc., Calif SupCt, 38 Cal3d 509, 698 P2d 150, 213 CalRptr 247): Provisions of California's Outdoor Advertising Act that provide for restrictions on outdoor advertising consonant with provisions of federal Highway Beautification Act may not be applied to billboards located upon Indian lands; state may not enforce provisions of federal Highway Beautifica- tion Act against billboards located on Indian lands. Questions presented: (1) Do provisions of 1965 Highway Beautification Act of 1965 (Act) 23 U.S.C. §§ 131, 136 and 319, extend to all lands adjacent to the interstate highway sys- tem and primary system, including Indian reservations? (2) If so, does Act provide for states to enforce its provisions on all lands adjacent to interstate highway system and primary sys- tem including Indian reservations? Petition for certiorari filed 10/7/85, by Harrison W. Hertzberg, Haskell H. Grodberg, and Hertzberg & Regele of Los Angeles, Calif. 54 U.S.L.W. 3381, Dec. 3, 1985 86-669 Ad Hoc Committee for Akwesasne Rights v. Rey- nolds Metal Co. Indians-approval of class action settlement-attorneys' fees Ruling below (CA2, 6/25/85): Evidence that settlement was reached only after extensive arms' length negotiations, settlement was approved by inde- pendent counsel, that potential recovery was likely to be only fraction of settlement, and that disapproval of settlement and trial of case would not be likely to result in further emissions reduction, supports district court's approval of class action settlement in suit brought by Indians alleging that fluoride emissions from aluminum plants damaged property; since no appeal was taken from district court's separate order on attorneys' fees, issue is not before this court. Questions presented: (1) Did court of appeals err in holding that issue of amount of attorneys' fees awarded to plaintiffs' counsel was not before it, when one timely notice of appeal was submited, which appealed from each and every part of the order approving the proposed settlement agreement, and three orders issued simultaneously by district court all per- tained to settlement agreement? (2) Was settlement agreement approved by district court and affirmed by court of appeals January 1986 13 ILR 1001

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