Add to ORKGAn individual was allowed to lease tribal land because of her tribal membership. The district court erroneously considered that tribal land an asset in the marriage dissolution proceeding, and the individual appealed. The Montana Supreme Court held that tribal land must be excluded from consideration in such cases because the Tribe owns the land, not the individual. Additionally, a state court does not have authority to allocate tribal property because Indian trust property can only be conveyed with the consent of the Secretary of the Interior
In the summer of 2020, two significant events brought into focus the relationship between Indigenous...
The Western Montana Water Users challenged the authority of the Flathead Joint Control Board to ente...
The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals found that an 1882 Act of Congress did not intend to diminish th...
The modern Congress and executive branch generally recognize that American Indian tribes retain thei...
In 1981, the Supreme Court issued its decision in Montana v. United States, severely restricting the...
Stemming from a property dispute between a private landowner and the Upper Skagit Indian Tribe, this...
In a series of cases beginning with its 1981 decision in Montana v. United States, the US. Supreme C...
In 2009, the Department of the Interior acquired land so the Match-E-Be-Nash-She-Wish Band of Pottaw...
The Allotment Act of 1887 diminished tribal regulatory authority over Indian reservation land use. ...
A summary judgment decision is ordinarily not casenote material. But the denial of summary judgment ...
On June 10, 2011, in Water Wheel Camp Recreational Area, Inc. v. LaRance, the U.S. Court of Appeals ...
Navajo tribal members are in dispute over tribal ancestral lands, one claiming a right from a federa...
Alaska Native Tribes have long been classified differently than the federally recognized Indian trib...
Kloker v. Fort Peck Tribes investigates and deciphers the application of the Indian canons of constr...
The U.S. Supreme Court issued its opinion in McGirt v. Oklahoma last July. The Court ruled that the ...
In the summer of 2020, two significant events brought into focus the relationship between Indigenous...
The Western Montana Water Users challenged the authority of the Flathead Joint Control Board to ente...
The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals found that an 1882 Act of Congress did not intend to diminish th...
The modern Congress and executive branch generally recognize that American Indian tribes retain thei...
In 1981, the Supreme Court issued its decision in Montana v. United States, severely restricting the...
Stemming from a property dispute between a private landowner and the Upper Skagit Indian Tribe, this...
In a series of cases beginning with its 1981 decision in Montana v. United States, the US. Supreme C...
In 2009, the Department of the Interior acquired land so the Match-E-Be-Nash-She-Wish Band of Pottaw...
The Allotment Act of 1887 diminished tribal regulatory authority over Indian reservation land use. ...
A summary judgment decision is ordinarily not casenote material. But the denial of summary judgment ...
On June 10, 2011, in Water Wheel Camp Recreational Area, Inc. v. LaRance, the U.S. Court of Appeals ...
Navajo tribal members are in dispute over tribal ancestral lands, one claiming a right from a federa...
Alaska Native Tribes have long been classified differently than the federally recognized Indian trib...
Kloker v. Fort Peck Tribes investigates and deciphers the application of the Indian canons of constr...
The U.S. Supreme Court issued its opinion in McGirt v. Oklahoma last July. The Court ruled that the ...
In the summer of 2020, two significant events brought into focus the relationship between Indigenous...
The Western Montana Water Users challenged the authority of the Flathead Joint Control Board to ente...
The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals found that an 1882 Act of Congress did not intend to diminish th...