Citation network
Affiliated Tribes Vs. Wold Engineering
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- May 29, 1984
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
-
Affiliated Tribes v. WoldSearch
-
Engineering - 467 U.S. 138 (1984) U.S. Supreme Court Affiliated Tribes v. WoldSearch
-
Engineering, 467 U.S. 138 (1984) Three Affiliated Tribes of the Fort Berthold Reservation v. WoldSearch
-
Constitution. The court rejected petitioner's argument that the jurisdiction that it had recognized in Vermillion v. SpottedSearch
-
Tribe seeks, rather than contests, state court jurisdiction, and the non-Indian party is in opposition. Cf. Williams v. LeeSearch
-
Stat. 1032. See City of New Town v. UnitedSearch
-
that Indian territories were beyond the legislative and judicial jurisdiction of state governments. Worcester v. GeorgiaSearch
-
Williams v. LeeSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
were substantially eliminated in 1953 with the enactment of the aforementioned Pub.L. 280. See generally Washington v. YakimaSearch
-
civil jurisdiction over Indian country only in cases involving interests in Indian lands themselves. Vermillion v. SpottedSearch
-
White Eagle v. DorganSearch
-
and the Civil Rights Act of 1968. The court rejected this argument, adhering instead to its conclusion in Nelson v. DuboisSearch
-
The court relied on Washington v. YakimaSearch
-
this Court has departed from the rigid demarcation of state and tribal authority laid down in 1832 in Worcester v. GeorgiaSearch
-
Ibid., quoting Williams v. LeeSearch
-
be preempted by incompatible federal law. White Mountain, 448 U.S. at 448 U. S. 142 . Accord, New Mexico v. MescaleroSearch
-
Ramah Navajo School Board, Inc. v. BureauSearch
-
McClanahan v. ArizonaSearch
-
against Indians or over claims between Indians, it intruded impermissibly on tribal self-governance. See Fisher v. DistrictSearch
-
Williams v. LeeSearch
-
courts over claims by Indians against non-Indians, even when those claims arose in Indian country. See McClanahan v. ArizonaSearch
-
Poafpybitty v. SkellySearch
-
The interests implicated in such cases are very different from those present in Williams v. LeeSearch
-
where a non-Indian sued an Indian in state court for debts incurred in Indian country, or in Fisher v. DistrictSearch
-
in this Court's past decisions about state jurisdiction over Indian affairs or activities on Indian lands. Arizona v. SanSearch
-
are to be liberally construed, with doubtful expressions being resolved in favor of the Indians. See, e.g., Bryan v. ItascaSearch
-
Alaska Pacific Fisheries v. UnitedSearch
-
was intended to facilitate, rather than to impede, the transfer of jurisdictional authority to the States. Washington v. YakimaSearch
-
Bryan v. ItascaSearch
-
Similarly, while Pub.L. 280 authorized States to assume partial, rather than full, civil jurisdiction, see Washington v. YakimaSearch
-
to revise the North Dakota Supreme Court's interpretation of state jurisdictional law. Only last Term, in Arizona v. SanSearch
-
to avoid a perceived conflict with federal statutory or constitutional requirements. See, e.g., United Air Lines, Inc. v. MahinSearch
-
State Tax Comm'n v. VanSearch
-
Red Cross Line v. AtlanticSearch
-
San Diego Building Trades Council v. GarmonSearch
-
in the belief that federal law poses no barrier to the exercise of state authority. See, e.g., Standard Oil Co. v. JohnsonSearch
-
principles that have come to govern our calculation of adequate and independent state grounds. In Michigan v. LongSearch
-
Dakota Supreme Court's judgment means that we do not face a question of our own jurisdiction, see Standard Oil Co. v. JohnsonSearch
-
in Gourneau v. SmithSearch
-
the policy of construing state statutes to avoid potential state and federal constitutional problems, see, e.g., State v. KottenbrochSearch
-
Paluck v. BoardSearch
-
Grace Lutheran Church v. NorthSearch
-
North American Coal Corp. v. HuberSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial