Citation network
Antoine Vs. Washington
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Feb 19, 1975
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
- Distinguished
-
U.S. 194 (1975) U.S. Supreme Court Antoine v. WashingtonSearch
-
U.S. 194 (1975) Antoine v. WashingtonSearch
-
ratifying contracts between the Executive Branch with Indian tribes to which affected States were not parties. Choate v. TrappSearch
-
Perrin v. UnitedSearch
-
of treaties and statutes ratifying agreements with the Indians is not to be construed to their prejudice. Worcester v. GeorgiaSearch
-
Choctaw Nation v. UnitedSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
Menominee Tribe v. UnitedSearch
-
States, 391 U. S. 404 , 391 U. S. 406 n. 2 (1968). In Choate v. TrappSearch
-
U.S. at 224 U. S. 675 . See also Seminole Nation v. UnitedSearch
-
however, than that, after 1871, relations with Indians would be governed by Acts of Congress, and not by treaty. Elk v. WilkinsSearch
-
which affected States were not parties. Several decisions of this Court have long settled that proposition. In Choate v. TrappSearch
-
of Indian lands were enforceable against the State of Oklahoma, which was not a party to the agreement. In Perrin v. UnitedSearch
-
Id. at 232 U. S. 483 . See also Dick v. UnitedSearch
-
Morton v. RuizSearch
-
Reservation on the terms and conditions in the 1891 Agreement, even if that Agreement had never been made. Mattz v. ArnettSearch
-
Dick v. UnitedSearch
-
Puyallup Tribe v. DepartmentSearch
-
State must demonstrate that its regulation is a reasonable and necessary conservation measure, Washington Game Dept. v. PuyallupSearch
-
by the Indians on the land in question is in any way necessary, or even useful, for the conservation of deer. See Hunt v. UnitedSearch
-
Seymour v. SuperintendentSearch
-
The status of the southern half of the Colville Reservation was considered in Seymour v. SuperintendentSearch
-
They recovered judgments against the United States for their services in the Court of Claims. Butler and Vale v. UnitedSearch
-
by the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution, Art. VI, cl. 2. We so held recently in Page 420 U. S. 210 Morton v. MancariSearch
-
U. S. 199 (1974). And see Choate v. TrappSearch
-
States would not be construed as a grant only of such right.s as other inhabitants had. As stated in United States v. WinansSearch
-
That was our view in Puyallup Tribe v. DepartmentSearch
-
but discrimination against the Indians by conservation measures is not permissible, Washington Game Dept. v. PuyallupSearch
-
need. A State may do that, when it comes to non-Indians or to Indians with no federal hunting rights, Lacoste v. DepartmentSearch
-
it did so. Far from supporting the result reached by the Court in this case, the decisions of this Court in Choate v. TrappSearch
-
U. S. 665 (1912), Perrin v. UnitedSearch
-
States, 232 U. S. 478 (1914), and Dick v. UnitedSearch
-
Stat. 505. The section then proceeds to set out in haec verba the full text of the Atoka Agreement. Perrin v. UnitedSearch
-
for which they had bargained. After a 14-year campaign, described in detail in the report of Butler and Vale v. UnitedSearch
-
U.S. Supreme Court Antoine v. WashingtonSearch
-
Worcester v. GeorgiaSearch
-
In Choate v. TrappSearch
-
Seminole Nation v. UnitedSearch
-
In Perrin v. UnitedSearch
-
Washington Game Dept. v. PuyallupSearch
-
See Hunt v. UnitedSearch
-
the Court of Claims. Butler and Vale v. UnitedSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial