Citation network
Rosebud Sioux Tribe Vs. Kneip
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Apr 04, 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. 584 (1977) U.S. Supreme Court Rosebud Sioux Tribe v. KneipSearch
-
U.S. 584 (1977) Rosebud Sioux Tribe v. KneipSearch
-
We granted certiorari, 425 U.S. 989, to review this determination in the light of our recent decisions in DeCoteau v. DistrictSearch
-
County Court, 420 U. S. 425 (1975), and Mattz v. ArnettSearch
-
by well established legal principles. The underlying premise is that congressional intent will control. DeCoteau v. DistrictSearch
-
McClanahan v. ArizonaSearch
-
State Tax Comm'n, 411 U. S. 164 , 411 U. S. 174 (1973), quoting Carpenter v. ShawSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
Mattz v. ArnettSearch
-
does not necessarily mean that the opened area has lost its reservation Page 430 U. S. 587 status. Mattz v. ArnettSearch
-
Seymour v. SuperintendentSearch
-
that reservation status survives in the face of congressionally manifested intent to the contrary. DeCoteau v. DistrictSearch
-
are to be examined with an eye toward determining what congressional intent was. Mattz v. ArnettSearch
-
of these two factors vitally distinguishes the Acts in question from the otherwise similar Act examined in DeCoteau v. DistrictSearch
-
U. S. 588 the first of these Acts, in 1904, Congress was aware of the decision of this Court in Lone Wolf v. HitchcockSearch
-
were removed from the Reservation by the Act of February 28, 1877, 19 Stat. 254. See Sioux Tribe of Indians v. UnitedSearch
-
to which we referred in DeCoteau v. DistrictSearch
-
of the 1901 Agreement, if ratified, would have been to change the Reservation boundaries. As we noted in DeCoteau v. DistrictSearch
-
In this Agreement, therefore, we have -- unlike the situation in Mattz v. ArnettSearch
-
that it was not bound by the three-fourths consent requirement of the 1868 Treaty with the Sioux Nation. In Lone Wolf v. HitchcockSearch
-
Stat. 256. As in DeCoteau v. DistrictSearch
-
Johnson v. UnitedSearch
-
Cong.Rec. 1423 (1904) (remarks of Rep. Burke). It is clear that Congress was relying on Lone Wolf v. HitchcockSearch
-
DeCoteau v. DistrictSearch
-
Wlliams v. LeeSearch
-
if Congress had it to do over again, it might well have chosen a different course. But, as we observed in DeCoteau v. DistrictSearch
-
In light of Lone Wolf v. HitchcockSearch
-
Cong., 2d Sess., 1, 3 (1904) (accompanying H.R. 10418). The Report, id. at 4, in discussing Lone Wolf v. HitchcockSearch
-
Congress was explicitly aware that it was acting pursuant to the holding in Lone Wolf v. HitchcockSearch
-
We noted in DeCoteau v. DistrictSearch
-
in this case for the simple reason that, between the Sisseton-Wahpeton Agreement and the 1904 Rosebud Act, Lone Wolf v. HitchcockSearch
-
County Court, supra at 420 U. S. 448 , as there was in Mattz v. ArnettSearch
-
area since the passage of the enactment an indication of the intended purpose of the Act that was not present in Mattz v. ArnettSearch
-
Moreover, as discussed in n 24, infra under Minnesota v. HitchcockSearch
-
superfluous. See also n. 23 supra. The United States, as amicus curiae, argues that Minnesota v. HitchcockSearch
-
This preceding status could exist even if the lands were disestablished from a reservation. United States v. PelicanSearch
-
Ash Sheep Co. v. UnitedSearch
-
Hitchcock and Ash Sheep is therefore logically separate from a question of disestablishment. United States v. PelicanSearch
-
State v. WhiteSearch
-
Cf. Massachusetts v. NewSearch
-
jurisdiction is, in the related area of state boundary disputes, entitled to considerable weight. See Rhode Island v. MassachusettsSearch
-
Louisiana v. MississippiSearch
-
Michigan v. WisconsinSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial