Citation network
Choctaw Nation Vs. Oklahoma
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Apr 27, 1970
Citation network · 7-day free trial
Brief every cited case in minutes
Open an 18-section AI Brief on any citation below, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial - no card required.
- 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
- Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
- Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
- Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases
No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account
-
U.S. 620 (1970) U.S. Supreme Court Choctaw Nation v. OklahomaSearch
-
U.S. 620 (1970) Choctaw Nation v. OklahomaSearch
-
has often held that treaties with the Indians must be interpreted as they would have understood them, see, e.g., Jones v. MeehanSearch
-
and any doubtful expressions in them should be resolved in the Indians' favor. See Alaska Pacific Fisheries v. UnitedSearch
-
branches -- but it also conflicts with this Court's interpretation of the term in Brewer-Elliott Oil & Gas Co. v. UnitedSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
States can dispose of lands underlying navigable waters just as it can dispose of other public lands. See Shively v. BowlbySearch
-
is whether the United States intended to convey title to the river bed to petitioners. See Alaska Pacific Fisheries v. UnitedSearch
-
Moore v. UnitedSearch
-
Donnelly v. UnitedSearch
-
United States v. HoltSearch
-
However, nothing in the Holt State Bank case or in the policy underlying its rule of construction ( see Shively v. BowlbySearch
-
however, the Indians were promised virtually complete sovereignty over their new lands. See Atlantic Pacific R. Co. v. MingusSearch
-
Together with No. 59, Cherokee Nation or Tribe of Indians in Oklahoma v. OklahomaSearch
-
See Johnson v. McIntoshSearch
-
on behalf of the Cherokees remaining in Georgia included two cases that were brought to this court, Cherokee Nation v. GeorgiaSearch
-
Pet. 1 (1831), and Worcester v. GeorgiaSearch
-
See Marlin v. LewallenSearch
-
and, when it did so, the boundary was set as the middle of the main channel. See Arkansas v. MississippiSearch
-
Nations, which had long been considered sovereign entities. In fact, this Court recognized the analogy in Barney v. KeokukSearch
-
a grant bounded by the Mississippi River, when it quoted with apparent approval the following language from Haight v. CitySearch
-
by these tribes as not the usual aboriginal Indian title of use and occupancy, but a fee simple, cf. United States v. CreekSearch
-
or abandoned the territory -- conditions not yet occurring. The reliance by the Court of Appeals on United States v. HoltSearch
-
position in these cases and maintaining it vigorously on oral argument. It concedes, as it must in light of Shively v. BowlbySearch
-
was created to negotiate an agreement with these tribes superseding the earlier treaties, all as related in Choate v. TrappSearch
-
that repeatedly in our history have sought to exploit them. The idea was perhaps best stated in United States v. WinansSearch
-
The detail of the removal of the Cherokees from their ancestral lands are related in Western Cherokee Indians v. UnitedSearch
-
the role of lessor of the river bed, although several cases have involved such leases by the State. See, e.g., Lynch v. ClementsSearch
-
States of land located on a navigable river carry no interest in the river bed under federal law. Railroad Co. v. SchurmeirSearch
-
U. S. 661 , 137 U. S. 672 (1891), is to like effect. Shively v. BowlbySearch
-
had an interest in the river bed by reason of his federal grant. It was held that he did not. In 1845, Pollard v. HaganSearch
-
of the beds prior to statehood. This implication was repudiated by statements in such later cases as Goodtitle v. KibbeSearch
-
How. 471, 50 U. S. 478 (1850), and Shively v. BowlbySearch
-
interests in navigable river beds prior to statehood was deemed an open question in Brewer-Elliott Oil & Gas Co. v. UnitedSearch
-
provision of a home for an Indian tribe came within one of these permitted purposes. Three years later, United States v. HoltSearch
-
The ownership of lands under navigable waters was deemed an incident of sovereignty, Martin v. WaddellSearch
-
to convey such lands lying in its unorganized territories, Congress never undertook to do so by general laws. Shively v. BowlbySearch
-
the Choctaws' land was on the south side. I find unimpressive the Court's reliance on Brewer-Elliott Oil & Gas Co. v. UnitedSearch
-
Railroad Co. v. SchurmeierSearch
-
evidence is insufficient to prove an intent on the part of the Government to convey the river bed. Cf. United States v. HoltSearch
-
it created no rights, legal or equitable, in individuals. Cf. Fleming v. McCurtainSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial