In Montana v. Crow Tribe of Indians, the United States Supreme Court declined to award the Crow Tribe of Indians disgorgement of coal taxes collected by Montana from a mining company with operations on the Tribe’s reservation. The Supreme Court justified its decision by distinguishing the 1939 Montana Supreme Court case Valley County v. Thomas, referencing the precedent set by Cotton Petroleum Corp. v. New Mexico, and noting that the Tribe lacked the necessary approval to tax from the Department of the Interior. This Comment argues that the Supreme Court should have granted the Tribe full disgorgement, partial disgorgement, or compensatory damages
In Herrera v. Wyoming, the Supreme Court is considering how to reconcile the Crow Tribe’s hunting ri...
In a series of cases beginning with its 1981 decision in Montana v. United States, the US. Supreme C...
This United States (US) Supreme Court case, decided June 14, 1976, provided clarity on the jurisdict...
In Montana v. Crow Tribe of Indians, the United States Supreme Court declined to award the Crow Trib...
The United States Supreme Court held that an Indian tribe could not recover state taxes paid by its ...
Crow Tribe v. Montana: New Limits on State Intrusion Into Reservation Rights, New Lessons for State ...
In 1974 the Crow Tribal Council enacted a resolution restricting reservation hunting and fishing to ...
This order from the Montana Water Court approved the Crow Water Compact over objections by non-triba...
Stemming from the conviction of a Crow tribal member for illegal hunting, Herrera v. Wyoming reignit...
The modern Congress and executive branch generally recognize that American Indian tribes retain thei...
Stemming from a property dispute between a private landowner and the Upper Skagit Indian Tribe, this...
The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed dismissal of three consolidated a...
A summary judgment decision is ordinarily not casenote material. But the denial of summary judgment ...
The Standing Rock Sioux’s effort to enjoin the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ permitting of an oil pi...
The Navajo Nation sued the United States government alleging the government breached its trust oblig...
In Herrera v. Wyoming, the Supreme Court is considering how to reconcile the Crow Tribe’s hunting ri...
In a series of cases beginning with its 1981 decision in Montana v. United States, the US. Supreme C...
This United States (US) Supreme Court case, decided June 14, 1976, provided clarity on the jurisdict...
In Montana v. Crow Tribe of Indians, the United States Supreme Court declined to award the Crow Trib...
The United States Supreme Court held that an Indian tribe could not recover state taxes paid by its ...
Crow Tribe v. Montana: New Limits on State Intrusion Into Reservation Rights, New Lessons for State ...
In 1974 the Crow Tribal Council enacted a resolution restricting reservation hunting and fishing to ...
This order from the Montana Water Court approved the Crow Water Compact over objections by non-triba...
Stemming from the conviction of a Crow tribal member for illegal hunting, Herrera v. Wyoming reignit...
The modern Congress and executive branch generally recognize that American Indian tribes retain thei...
Stemming from a property dispute between a private landowner and the Upper Skagit Indian Tribe, this...
The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed dismissal of three consolidated a...
A summary judgment decision is ordinarily not casenote material. But the denial of summary judgment ...
The Standing Rock Sioux’s effort to enjoin the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ permitting of an oil pi...
The Navajo Nation sued the United States government alleging the government breached its trust oblig...
In Herrera v. Wyoming, the Supreme Court is considering how to reconcile the Crow Tribe’s hunting ri...
In a series of cases beginning with its 1981 decision in Montana v. United States, the US. Supreme C...
This United States (US) Supreme Court case, decided June 14, 1976, provided clarity on the jurisdict...