Citation network
Montana Vs. United States
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Mar 24, 1981
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
-
Montana v. UnitedSearch
-
States - 450 U.S. 544 (1981) U.S. Supreme Court Montana v. UnitedSearch
-
States, 450 U.S. 544 (1981) Montana v. UnitedSearch
-
is not strong enough to overcome the presumption against the sovereign's conveyance of the riverbed. Cf. United States v. HoltSearch
-
and cannot apply to subsequently alienated lands held in fee by non-Indians. Cf. Puyallup Tribe v. WashingtonSearch
-
attributes of sovereignty, particularly as to the relations between a tribe and nonmembers of the tribe. United States v. WheelerSearch
-
not intend to divest itself of its sovereign rights in navigable waters and reasoned that here, as in United States v. HoltSearch
-
Court of Appeals reversed the judgment of the District Court. 604 F. 2d 1162. Relying on its opinion in United States v. FinchSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
the riverbed as public land which then passed to the State of Montana upon its admission to the Union. Choctaw Nation v. OklahomaSearch
-
conveyance by the United States of land riparian to a navigable river carries no interest in the riverbed. Packer v. BirdSearch
-
Railroad Co. v. SchurmeirSearch
-
Rather, the ownership of land under navigable waters is an incident of sovereignty. Martin v. WaddellSearch
-
with the established States. Pollard's Lessee v. HaganSearch
-
power of the United States to ensure that such waters remain free to interstate and foreign commerce. United States v. OregonSearch
-
property underlying navigable waters is so strongly identified with the sovereign power of government, United States v. OregonSearch
-
United States v. HoltSearch
-
State Bank, 270 U.S. at 270 U. S. 55 . See also Shively v. BowlbySearch
-
water must, therefore, begin with a strong presumption against conveyance by the United States, United States v. OregonSearch
-
In United States v. HoltSearch
-
of the Indians, Treaty of Feb. 22, 1855, 10 Stat. 1165. See Minnesota v. HitchcockSearch
-
against the sovereign's conveyance of the riverbed. The treaty in no way expressly referred to the riverbed, Packer v. BirdSearch
-
as granting to the Indians all the lands, including the riverbed, within the described boundaries. United States v. FinchSearch
-
within the meaning of Shively v. BowlbySearch
-
S. at 152 U. S. 48 , justifying a congressional conveyance of a riverbed, see, e.g., Alaska Pacific Fisheries v. UnitedSearch
-
to depart from its policy of reserving ownership of beds under navigable waters for the future States. See Shively v. BowlbySearch
-
on buffalo, and fishing was not important to their diet or way of life. 1 App. 74. Cf. Alaska Pacific Fisheries v. UnitedSearch
-
Skokomish Indian Tribe v. FranceSearch
-
As noted earlier, the treaty did not even create a reservation, although it did designate tribal lands. See Crow Tribe v. UnitedSearch
-
Page 450 U. S. 560 In Puyallup Tribe v. WashingtonSearch
-
to non-Indian lands. This Court most recently reviewed the principles of inherent sovereignty in United States v. WheelerSearch
-
dependent status of the tribes, and so cannot survive without express congressional delegation. Mescalero Apache Tribe v. JonesSearch
-
Williams v. LeeSearch
-
McClanahan v. ArizonaSearch
-
the Crow Tribe to adopt Resolution No. 74-05. The Court recently applied these general principles in Oliphant v. SuquamishSearch
-
with their diminished status as sovereigns, the Court quoted Justice Johnson's words in his concurrence in Fletcher v. PeckSearch
-
with the tribe or its members, through commercial dealing, contracts, leases, or other arrangements. Williams v. LeeSearch
-
Buste v. WrightSearch
-
Washington v. ConfederatedSearch
-
direct effect on the political integrity, the economic security, or the health or welfare of the tribe. See Fisher v. DistrictSearch
-
Montana Catholic Missions v. MissoulaSearch
-
U.S. Supreme Court Montana v. UnitedSearch
-
Cf. United States v. HoltSearch
-
Cf. Puyallup Tribe v. WashingtonSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial