Citation network
Moe Vs. Salish and Kootenai Tribes
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Apr 27, 1976
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
-
Moe v. SalishSearch
-
Kootenai Tribes - 425 U.S. 463 (1976) U.S. Supreme Court Moe v. SalishSearch
-
Kootenai Tribes, 425 U.S. 463 (1976) Moe v. ConfederatedSearch
-
conflict with the federal statutes that provide the basis for decision with respect to such impositions. McClanahan v. ArizonaSearch
-
That court, by a divided vote, held that our decision in McClanahan v. ArizonaSearch
-
courts, from which the cause may be brought to this Court for review if any federal question be involved.' Matthews v. RodgersSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
Great Lakes Co. v. HuffmanSearch
-
Department of Employment v. UnitedSearch
-
Oklahoma Tax Comm'n v. TexasSearch
-
Oklahoma Tax Comm'n v. UnitedSearch
-
the United States could have brought these actions, by itself or as co-plaintiff, seems reasonably clear. In Heckman v. UnitedSearch
-
had the requisite interest in enforcing these restrictions for the Indians' benefit, the Court discussed United States v. RickertSearch
-
attack on the State's assertion of taxing power as was in Page 425 U. S. 474 fact made by the Tribe. Heckman v. UnitedSearch
-
from seeking to enjoin the enforcement of a state tax law, Department of Employment v. PageSearch
-
reservation lands or Indian income from activities carried on within the boundaries of the reservation, and McClanahan v. ArizonaSearch
-
The State relies on Goudy v. MeathSearch
-
the Flathead Reservation has been substantially diminished in size. A similar claim was made by the State in Seymour v. SuperintendentSearch
-
contrary to the intent embodied in the existing federal statutory law of Indian jurisdiction. See also United States v. MazurieSearch
-
statutes discussed, for example, in McClanahan, 411 U.S. at 411 U. S. 173 -179. See also Kennerly v. DistrictSearch
-
Indian citizens and taxpayers, Page 425 U. S. 480 we think it is foreclosed by our recent decision in Morton v. MancariSearch
-
and cites Warren Trading Post v. ArizonaSearch
-
We see nothing in this burden which frustrates tribal self-government, see Williams v. LeeSearch
-
or runs afoul of any congressional enactment dealing with the affairs of reservation Indians, United States v. McGowanSearch
-
Thomas v. GaySearch
-
Together with No. 750, Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes of the Flathead Reservation et al. v. MoeSearch
-
in any case, the State has made no claim as to the propriety of the District Court's entry of relief under Younger v. HarrisSearch
-
is tribal self-government, such a conclusion is quite consistent with other doctrines of standing. See, e.g., Warth v. SeldinSearch
-
Indians have standing to sue for refunds, their claims must be properly grounded jurisdictionally. See, e.g., Zahn v. InternationalSearch
-
as applied to income earned by tribal members on the reservation. Shortly after this Court's decision in McClanahan v. ArizonaSearch
-
Cases in the lower federal courts cited therein (385 U.S. at 385 U. S. 358 n. 6), e.g., United States v. ArlingtonSearch
-
United States v. SanSearch
-
Bland v. McHannSearch
-
American Commuters Assn., Inc. v. LevittSearch
-
F.2d 1148 (CA2 1969). Cf. Lynch v. HouseholdSearch
-
See n 7, supra. Cf. California Bankers Assn. v. ShultzSearch
-
either under the Commerce Clause or the intergovernmental immunity doctrine as laid down originally in M'Culloch v. MarylandSearch
-
Swift & Co. v. WickhamSearch
-
Clause, a not insubstantial claim, since Mescalero and McClanahan had not yet been decided. See Goosby v. OsserSearch
-
U.S. Supreme Court Moe v. SalishSearch
-
Moe v. ConfederatedSearch
-
McClanahan v. ArizonaSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial