Citation network
Mattz Vs. Arnett
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Jun 11, 1973
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. 481 (1973) U.S. Supreme Court Mattz v. ArnettSearch
-
U.S. 481 (1973) Mattz v. ArnettSearch
-
an intention to terminate the reservation, are completely consistent with continued reservation status. Seymour v. SuperintendentSearch
-
and 8630, therefore were inapplicable to him. The state trial court, relying on Elser v. GillSearch
-
nearly all those who did move returned within a few Page 412 U. S. 488 years to the Klamath River. Crichton v. SheltonSearch
-
public lands. Id. at 223. No similar action was taken with respect to the Klamath River Reservation. Crichton v. SheltonSearch
-
land pursuant to the 1864 Act, and that, therefore, it no longer constituted an Indian reservation. United States v. Forty-eightSearch
-
Crichton v. SheltonSearch
-
reservations and, specifically, the legality of the 1891 Executive Order, was affirmed by this Court in Donnelly v. UnitedSearch
-
alone, recite or even suggest that Congress intended thereby to terminate the Klamath River Reservation. See Seymour v. SuperintendentSearch
-
See United States v. CelestineSearch
-
U. S. 591 (1916). See also Wilbur v. UnitedSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
Donnelly v. UnitedSearch
-
be restored to the public domain, and that the proceeds be held in trust for the Klamath River Indians. See Short v. UnitedSearch
-
the opinion of the Assistant Attorney General, referred to above, are outlined in the Commissioner's report in Short v. UnitedSearch
-
The Court stated in United States v. CelestineSearch
-
expressed on the face of the Act or be clear from the surrounding circumstances and legislative history. See Seymour v. SuperintendentSearch
-
status of the land after 1892 by the Department of the Interior and by Congress. In 1904 the Department, in Crichton v. SheltonSearch
-
Opinion dated Jan. 20, 1891, of the Assistant Attorney General for the Department of the Interior, quoted in Crichton v. SheltonSearch
-
the Indian population along the Klamath was 2,500. Report of D. H. Lowry, Indian Agent, Sept. 1, 1871, noted in Short v. UnitedSearch
-
dated Apr. 4, 1888, from the Commissioner of Indian Affairs to the Secretary of the Interior, quoted in Crichton v. SheltonSearch
-
Quoted in Crichton v. SheltonSearch
-
continuing authority to set apart and add to or diminish the four reservations authorized under the 1864 Act. Donnelly v. UnitedSearch
-
See, for example, the Act of Mar. 2, 1889, 25 Stat. 888 (Sioux Reservations), and United States v. NiceSearch
-
the Act of Mar. 22, 1906, 34 Stat. 80 (Colville Reservation), and Seymour v. SuperintendentSearch
-
Act of May 29, 1908, 35 Stat. 460 (Cheyenne River and Standing Rock Reservations), and United States ex rel. Condon v. EricksonSearch
-
were efforts in certain quarters of the House to terminate the reservation and open it for white settlement. See Short v. UnitedSearch
-
and Seymour v. SuperintendentSearch
-
In United States ex rel. Condon v. EricksonSearch
-
Although subsequent legislation usually is not entitled to much weight in construing earlier statutes, United States v. SouthwesternSearch
-
Cable Co., 392 U. S. 157 , 392 U. S. 170 (1968), it is not always without significance. See Seymour v. SuperintendentSearch
-
U.S. Supreme Court Mattz v. ArnettSearch
-
Elser v. GillSearch
-
the Klamath River. Crichton v. SheltonSearch
-
the Klamath River Reservation. Crichton v. SheltonSearch
-
United States v. Forty-eightSearch
-
the Klamath River Reservation. See Seymour v. SuperintendentSearch
-
Wilbur v. UnitedSearch
-
the Klamath River Indians. See Short v. UnitedSearch
-
Short v. UnitedSearch
-
See Seymour v. SuperintendentSearch
-
Act. Donnelly v. UnitedSearch
-
(Sioux Reservations), and United States v. NiceSearch
-
(Colville Reservation), and Seymour v. SuperintendentSearch
-
Condon v. EricksonSearch
-
See Short v. UnitedSearch
-
United States v. SouthwesternSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial