Citation network
Solem Vs. Bartlett
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Feb 22, 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
-
U.S. 463 (1984) U.S. Supreme Court Solem v. BartlettSearch
-
U.S. 463 (1984) Solem v. BartlettSearch
-
allotments, and, to a more limited degree, opened lands that had not yet been claimed by non-Indians. See Bates v. ClarkSearch
-
Ash Sheep Co. v. UnitedSearch
-
Act. Rather, it is settled law that some surplus land Acts diminished reservations, see, e.g., Rosebud Sioux Tribe v. KneipSearch
-
DeCoteau v. DistrictSearch
-
County Court, 420 U. S. 425 (1975), and other surplus land Acts did not, see, e.g., Mattz v. ArnettSearch
-
area, the entire block retains its reservation status until Congress explicitly indicates otherwise. See United States v. CelestineSearch
-
before diminishment will be found. Rosebud Sioux Tribe v. KneipSearch
-
interests strongly suggests that Congress meant to divest from the reservation all unallotted opened lands. DeCoteau v. DistrictSearch
-
that Congress meant for Page 465 U. S. 471 the tribe's reservation to be diminished. See DeCoteau v. DistrictSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
have acknowledged that de facto, if not de jure, diminishment may have occurred. See Rosebud Sioux Tribe v. KneipSearch
-
to rule that diminishment did not take place and that the old reservation boundaries survived the opening. Mattz v. ArnettSearch
-
being authorized to act as the Tribe's sales agent. Indeed, when faced with precisely the same language in Seymour v. SuperintendentSearch
-
these two phrases cannot carry the burden of establishing an express congressional purpose to diminish. Cf. Mattz v. ArnettSearch
-
Indian country, state jurisdiction is limited to crimes by non-Indians against non-Indians, see New York ex rel. Ray v. MartinSearch
-
United States v. DuprisSearch
-
United States v. LongSearch
-
Condon v. EricksonSearch
-
See State v. JanisSearch
-
Stankey v. WaddellSearch
-
May 29, 1908, pp. 1-30 (undated manuscript) (hereinafter Hoxie), which was prepared for presentation in United States v. DuprisSearch
-
See Montana v. UnitedSearch
-
and the Act further provided that the Tribe would receive full compensation in consideration for its loss. In DeCoteau v. DistrictSearch
-
Stat. 81. In Seymour v. SuperintendentSearch
-
a portion of the Colville Reservation to non-Indian settlers and did not diminish the reservation. See also Mattz v. ArnettSearch
-
last two Acts were strikingly similar to the 1906 Act found not to have diminished the Colville Reservation in Seymour v. SuperintendentSearch
-
unequivocally demonstrated that Congress meant for each Act to diminish the Rosebud Reservation. Rosebud Sioux Tribe v. KneipSearch
-
At one time, it was thought that Indian consent was needed to diminish a reservation, but in Lone Wolf v. HitchcockSearch
-
remains Indian country seriously burdens the administration of state and local governments. See Rosebud Sioux Tribe v. KneipSearch
-
checkerboard jurisdiction arise if a largely Indian opened area is found to be outside Indian country. See Seymour v. SuperintendentSearch
-
that the second two Rosebud Acts must have diminished their reservation if the previous Act did. Rosebud Sioux Tribe v. KneipSearch
-
to diminishment in common lands, and not diminishment of reservation boundaries. See United States ex rel. Condon v. EricksonSearch
-
in the so-called school lands provision and a subsequently enacted liquor prohibition for the opened lands. Stankey v. WaddellSearch
-
liquor prohibition Act). Although we credited similar provisions as supportive of our holding in Rosebud Sioux Tribe v. KneipSearch
-
See Rosebud Sioux Tribe v. KneipSearch
-
state courts came to assume that the opened areas fell within their general criminal jurisdiction. See, e.g., State v. BarnesSearch
-
It was only in 1973 that the Eighth Circuit challenged this assumption in United States ex rel. Condon v. EricksonSearch
-
U.S. Supreme Court Solem v. BartlettSearch
-
See Bates v. ClarkSearch
-
See United States v. CelestineSearch
-
See DeCoteau v. DistrictSearch
-
Cf. Mattz v. ArnettSearch
-
Ray v. MartinSearch
-
Condon v. EricksonSearch
-
In DeCoteau v. DistrictSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial