Citation network
Oneida Indian Nation Vs. County of Oneida
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Jan 21, 1974
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
- Relied / Followed
-
Oneida Indian Nation v. CountySearch
-
of Oneida - 414 U.S. 661 (1974) U.S. Supreme Court Oneida Indian Nation v. CountySearch
-
of Oneida, 414 U.S. 661 (1974) Oneida Indian Nation of New York v. CountySearch
-
of Taylor v. AndersonSearch
-
or obligation arises only under state law and federal law is merely alleged as a barrier to its effectuation. Gully v. FirstSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
U. S. 675 -676. (e) In sustaining the District Court's jurisdiction, the well pleaded complaint rule of Taylor v. AndersonSearch
-
as essentially seeking relief based on the right to possession of real property. The Court of Appeals thought Taylor v. AndersonSearch
-
may be Page 414 U. S. 667 the ultimate resolution of the federal issues on the merits. See, e.g., The Fair v. KohlerSearch
-
Montana Catholic Missions v. MissoulaSearch
-
Levering & Garrigues Co. v. MorrinSearch
-
Montana-Dakota Utilities Co. v. NorthwesternSearch
-
In United States v. SantaSearch
-
respect the Indian right of occupancy, which could only be interfered with or determined by the United States.' Cramer v. UnitedSearch
-
States, 261 U. S. 219 , 261 U. S. 227 . This policy was first recognized in Johnson v. M'IntoshSearch
-
Wheat. 543, and has been repeatedly reaffirmed. Worcester v. GeorgiaSearch
-
Mitchel v. UnitedSearch
-
Buttz v. NorthernSearch
-
United States v. ShoshoneSearch
-
Tribe, 304 U. S. 111 . As stated in Mitchel v. UnitedSearch
-
in Santa Fe, the fundamental propositions which it restated were firmly rooted in earlier cases. In Johnson v. M'IntoshSearch
-
to Indian lands in these States, or the preemptive right to purchase from the Indians, was in the State, Fletcher v. PeckSearch
-
occupancy, and that its termination was exclusively the province of federal law. For example, in Worcester v. GeorgiaSearch
-
assertion that the possessory right claimed is a federal right to the lands at issue in this case. Fellows v. BlacksmithSearch
-
an interference with Indian possessory rights guaranteed by the Federal Government. Much later, in United States v. FornessSearch
-
F.2d 928 (CA2), cert. denied sub nom. City of Salamanca v. UnitedSearch
-
only under state law and federal law is merely alleged as a barrier to its effectuation, as was the case in Gully v. FirstSearch
-
Nor, in sustaining the jurisdiction of the District Court, do we disturb the well pleaded complaint rule of Taylor v. AndersonSearch
-
patents had been issued with only the right to alienation being restricted for a period of time. Cf. Minnesota v. UnitedSearch
-
to allege that ownership Page 414 U. S. 677 or possession is claimed under a United States patent. Joy v. CitySearch
-
of St. Louis, 201 U. S. 332 , 201 U. S. 342 -343 (1906). As the Court stated in Packer v. BirdSearch
-
Gold-Washing Water Co. v. KeyesSearch
-
that federal law and federal courts must be deemed the controlling considerations in dealing with the Indians. Fellows v. BlacksmithSearch
-
The New York Indians, United States v. FornessSearch
-
Representative of almost countless cases are Cherokee Nation v. GeorgiaSearch
-
United States v. RogersSearch
-
Nadeau v. UnionSearch
-
Minnesota v. UnitedSearch
-
United States v. TillamooksSearch
-
Tee-Hit-Ton Indians v. UnitedSearch
-
Cherokee Nation v. GeorgiaSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial