Citation network
White MountaIn Apache Tribe Vs. Bracker
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Jun 27, 1980
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
-
U.S. 136 (1980) U.S. Supreme Court White Mountain Apache Tribe v. BrackerSearch
-
U.S. 136 (1980) White Mountain Apache Tribe v. BrackerSearch
-
The Arizona taxes are preempted by federal law. Cf. Warren Trading Post Co. v. ArizonaSearch
-
preemption claim. 120 Ariz. 282, 585 P.2d 891 (1978). Purporting to apply the test set forth in Pennsylvania v. NelsonSearch
-
within reservation boundaries, Worcester v. GeorgiaSearch
-
See Moe v. SalishSearch
-
Utah & Northern R. Co. v. FisherSearch
-
U. S. 544 , 419 U. S. 557 (1975). See also United States v. WheelerSearch
-
McClanahan v. ArizonaSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
State Tax Comm'n, 411 U. S. 164 , 411 U. S. 173 (1973), quoting United States v. KagamaSearch
-
cl 3. See United States v. WheelerSearch
-
and members. First, the exercise of such authority may be preempted by federal law. See, e.g., Warren Trading Post Co. v. ArizonaSearch
-
Williams v. LeeSearch
-
U. S. 217 , 358 U. S. 220 (1959). See also Washington v. YakimaSearch
-
Fisher Page 448 U. S. 143 v. DistrictSearch
-
Kennerly v. DistrictSearch
-
inform the determination whether the exercise of state authority has been preempted by operation of federal law. Moe v. SalishSearch
-
traditional notions of sovereignty and with the federal policy of encouraging tribal independence. See McClanahan v. ArizonaSearch
-
Warren Trading Post Co. v. ArizonaSearch
-
Comm'n, supra. At the same time, any applicable regulatory interest of the State must be given weight, McClanahan v. ArizonaSearch
-
are unusual. Moe v. SalishSearch
-
is likely to be minimal, and the federal interest in encouraging tribal self-government is at its strongest. See Moe v. SalishSearch
-
in the specific context, the exercise of state authority would violate federal law. Compare Warren Trading Post Co. v. ArizonaSearch
-
and Williams v. LeeSearch
-
Moe v. SalishSearch
-
and Thomas v. GaySearch
-
U. S. 264 (1898). Cf. McClanahan v. ArizonaSearch
-
is preempted, even though Congress has offered no explicit statement on the subject. See Warren Trading Post Co. v. ArizonaSearch
-
U.S. at 419 U. S. 558 , quoting Williams v. LeeSearch
-
Both the reasoning and result in this case follow naturally from our unanimous decision in Warren Trading Post Co. v. ArizonaSearch
-
The shift in approach is discussed in Williams v. LeeSearch
-
and McClanahan v. ArizonaSearch
-
U. S. 152 (1973), quoting H.R.Rep. No. 1804, 73d Cong., 2d Sess., 6 (1934). See also Santa Clara Pueblo v. MartinezSearch
-
Federal policies with respect to tribal timber have a long history. In United States v. CookSearch
-
Wall. 591 (1874), and Pine River Logging Co. v. UnitedSearch
-
U.S. Supreme Court White Mountain Apache Tribe v. BrackerSearch
-
Cf. Warren Trading Post Co. v. ArizonaSearch
-
Pennsylvania v. NelsonSearch
-
Worcester v. GeorgiaSearch
-
Ray v. MartinSearch
-
See United States v. WheelerSearch
-
Washington v. YakimaSearch
-
Moe v. SalishSearch
-
See McClanahan v. ArizonaSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial