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

28 ILR 1 (2001)

handle is hein.amindian/indlr0028 and id is 1 raw text is: INDIAN LAW REPORTER A PUBLICATION OF THE AMERICAN INDIAN LAWYER TRAINING PROGRAM, INC. January 2001 Celebrating 28 Years of Service Volume 28, No. 1 Month in Brief UNITED STATES COURTS OF APPEALS SECOND CIRCUIT Jurisdiction, Federal Court State Jurisdiction Affirming the district court, the Second Circuit concludes that the courts of the State of New York lack jurisdiction over an internal tribal dispute that is being litigated in tribal court, and the district court did not err in exercising jurisdiction over a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action to enjoin the exercise of jurisdiction by New York courts because 42 U.S.C. § 1983 does not require the exhaustion of state court remedies before a federal court can exercise jurisdiction. Bowen, Sr. v. Doyle, Jr., et al., No. 53, Docket 97-9572, 28 Indian L. Rep. 2001 (2d Cir., Oct. 18, 2000). NINTH CIRCUIT Administrative Law and Procedure Jurisdiction, Federal Court Probate Finding that the district court did not err in dismissing an action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, the Ninth Circuit holds that the exhaustion requirements of 43 C.FR. § 4.21(c) do not bar federal court jurisdiction over a colorable due process claim regarding pending Indian probate proceedings. Anderson v. Babbitt, No. 98-36150, 28 Indian L. Rep. 2003 (9th Cir., Oct. 30,2000). Civil Jurisdiction Tribal Courts: Jurisdiction Tribal Law: Tribal Codes; Jurisdiction The Ninth Circuit reverses the district court's ruling in an action challenging the Hoopa Valley Tribe's regulation of fee land owned by a non-Indian and located within the exterior boundaries of the Tribe's reservation, finding that in enacting the Hoopa-Yurok Settlement Act, the Congress did not expressly delegate authority to the Tribe to exercise jurisdiction over non-members, and that the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in Montana v. United States, 450 U. S. 544 (1981), controls the case. Bugenig v. Hoopa Valley Tribe, et al., No. 99-15654,28 Indian L. Rep. 2006 (9th Cir., Oct. 3, 2000). TENTH CIRCUIT Gaming- Indian Gaming Regulatory Act Affirming the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the defendants-appellees, the Tenth Circuit concludes that the MegaMania game challenged by the government is a Class II game under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act and that the game's machines are not illegal gambling devices oper- ated in violation of the Johnson Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1171-1178. United States v. 162 Megamania Gambling Devices, et al., No. 99-5064, 28 Indian L. Rep. 2012 (10th Cir., Oct. 31, 2000). 28 ILR 1 Copyright © 2001 by the American Indian Lawyer Training Program, Inc. Rights of redistribution or reproduction belong to the copyright owner. ISSN-0097-1154

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