Citation network
United States Vs. Wheeler
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Mar 22, 1978
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. 313 (1978) U.S. Supreme Court United States v. WheelerSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
U.S. 313 (1978) United States v. WheelerSearch
-
violating tribal law, the tribe acts as an independent sovereign, and not as an arm of the Federal Government, Talton v. MayesSearch
-
jurisdiction altogether, this abridgment of the tribes' sovereign powers might be equally undesirable. See Abbate v. UnitedSearch
-
the proceedings that had taken place in the Tribal Court barred a subsequent federal prosecution . See Brown v. OhioSearch
-
II In Bartkus v. IllinoisSearch
-
U. S. 121 , and Abbate v. UnitedSearch
-
Moore v. IllinoisSearch
-
however, in every instance where successive cases are brought by nominally different prosecuting entities. Grafton v. UnitedSearch
-
And Puerto Rico v. ShellSearch
-
Similarly, in Waller v. FloridaSearch
-
has plenary authority to legislate for the Indian tribes in all matters, including their form of government. Winton v. AmosSearch
-
each from the organic law that established it. United States v. LanzaSearch
-
U. S. 514 , 100 U. S. 524 . As we said in Waller v. FloridaSearch
-
Grafton v. UnitedSearch
-
Cincinnati Soap Co. v. UnitedSearch
-
American Ins. Co. v. CanterSearch
-
Domenech v. NationalSearch
-
the right to prescribe laws applicable to tribe members and to enforce those laws by criminal sanctions. United States v. AntelopeSearch
-
Europeans, the tribes were self-governing sovereign political Page 435 U. S. 323 communities. See McClanahan v. ArizonaSearch
-
Turner v. UnitedSearch
-
not withdrawn by treaty or statute, or by implication as a necessary result of their dependent status. See Oliphant v. SuquamishSearch
-
Williams v. LeeSearch
-
Warren Trading Post v. TaxSearch
-
the tribe. Thus, Indian tribes can no longer freely alienate to non-Indians the land they occupy. Oneida Indian Nation v. CountySearch
-
Johnson v. M'IntoshSearch
-
U. S. 574 . They cannot enter into direct commercial or governmental relations with foreign nations. Worcester v. GeorgiaSearch
-
Johnson, J., concurring). And, as we have recently held, they cannot try nonmembers in tribal courts. Oliphant v. SuquamishSearch
-
is clearly Page 435 U. S. 329 reflected in a case decided by this Court more than 80 years ago, Talton v. MayesSearch
-
Id. at 163 U. S. 382 -384. The relevance of Talton v. MayesSearch
-
with their own mores and laws, Worcester v. GeorgiaSearch
-
for the same offense, expressly rejecting the view of the Ninth Circuit in the present case. United States v. WalkingSearch
-
Crow, 560 F.2d 386. See also United States v. ElkSearch
-
United States v. KillsSearch
-
U.S. Supreme Court United States v. WheelerSearch
-
of the Federal Government, Talton v. MayesSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial