Citation network
United States Vs. Antelope
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Apr 19, 1977
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. 641 (1977) U.S. Supreme Court United States v. AntelopeSearch
-
U.S. 641 (1977) United States v. AntelopeSearch
-
are unique aggregations possessing attributes of sovereignty over both their members and their territory, Worcester v. GeorgiaSearch
-
In upholding a limited employment preference for Indians in the Bureau of Indian Affairs, we said in Morton. v. MancariSearch
-
Id. at 417 U. S. 554 . Page 430 U. S. 646 Last Term, in Fisher v. DistrictSearch
-
Crimes Act enjoy the same procedural benefits and privileges as all other persons within federal jurisdiction. Keeble v. UnitedSearch
-
Congress has undoubted constitutional power to prescribe a criminal code applicable in Indian country, United States v. KagamaSearch
-
The background leading up to enactment of the Major Crimes Act is discussed in Keeble v. UnitedSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
all crimes committed within Indian country are subject to federal or tribal jurisdiction, however. Under United States v. McBratneySearch
-
However, under United States v. McBratneySearch
-
longer subject, by virtue of their status, to federal criminal jurisdiction under the Major Crimes Act. United States v. HeathSearch
-
Crimes occurring elsewhere would not be subject to exclusive federal jurisdiction. Puyallup Tribe v. DepartmentSearch
-
Ex parte Pero, 99 F.2d 28, 30 (CA7 1938). See also United States v. IvesSearch
-
has been construed as not encompassing crimes on the reservation by non-Indians against non-Indians. United States v. McBratneySearch
-
Surplus Trading Co. v. CookSearch
-
Williams v. LeeSearch
-
McClananan v. ArizonaSearch
-
Perring v. UnitedSearch
-
States, 232 U. S. 478 , 232 U. S. 482 (1914). See also Rosebud Sioux Tribe v. KneipSearch
-
legislation directed specifically at the Indian tribes. See n 6, supra. As the Court noted in Morton v. MancariSearch
-
and burdens of proof from those applicable to non-Indians charged with the same offense. Compare United States v. BigSearch
-
Crow, 523 F.2d 955 (CA8 1975), cert. denied, 424 U.S. 920 (1976), and United States v. ClevelandSearch
-
F.2d 1067 (CA9 1974), with United States v. AnallaSearch
-
had respondents been prosecuted under state law, they may well have argued, under this Court's holding in Seymour v. SuperintendentSearch
-
U.S. Supreme Court United States v. AntelopeSearch
-
Worcester v. GeorgiaSearch
-
Fisher v. DistrictSearch
-
Keeble v. UnitedSearch
-
Under United States v. McBratneySearch
-
the Major Crimes Act. United States v. HeathSearch
-
Puyallup Tribe v. DepartmentSearch
-
United States v. IvesSearch
-
Compare United States v. BigSearch
-
and United States v. ClevelandSearch
-
United States v. AnallaSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial