Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

Oneida County Vs. Oneida Ind. Nation

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • Mar 04, 1985

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

74 entries 10 linked 64 unlinked
Show
  1. Chouteau Vs. Molony US Supreme Court · Jan 01, 1853
  2. Holden Vs. Joy US Supreme Court · Jan 01, 1872
  3. Choate Vs. Trapp US Supreme Court · May 13, 1912
  4. Carpenter Vs. Shaw US Supreme Court · Jan 06, 1930
  5. Baker Vs. Carr US Supreme Court · Mar 26, 1962
  6. Powell Vs. Mccormack US Supreme Court · Jun 16, 1969
  7. Cherokee Nation Vs. Georgia US Supreme Court · Jan 01, 1831
  8. Fletcher Vs. Peck US Supreme Court · Jan 01, 1810
  9. Fellows Vs. Blacksmith US Supreme Court · Jan 01, 1856
  10. Delaware Tribal Business Committee Vs. Weeks US Supreme Court · Feb 23, 1977
  11. Oneida County v. Oneida
    Search
  12. Ind. Nation - 470 U.S. 226 (1985) U.S. Supreme Court Oneida County v. Oneida
    Search
  13. Ind. Nation, 470 U.S. 226 (1985) County of Oneida, New York v. Oneida
    Search
  14. a) The possessory rights claimed by respondents are federal rights to the lands at issue. Oneida Indian Nation v. County
    Search
  15. there is no indication in the legislative history that Congress intended to preempt common law remedies. Milwaukee v. Illinois
    Search
  16. laws of the United States. The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed. Oneida Indian Nation v. County
    Search
  17. of Oneida, 464 F.2d 916 (1972). We then granted certiorari and reversed. Oneida Indian Nation v. County
    Search
  18. became the exclusive province of federal law. Oneida I, supra, at 414 U. S. 670 (citing Worcester v. Georgia
    Search
  19. of the Indians to the exclusive possession of their lands, Cherokee Nation v. Georgia
    Search
  20. Mitchel v. United
    Search
  21. Pet. 711, 34 U. S. 746 (1835). This principle has been reaffirmed consistently. See also Fletcher v. Peck
    Search
  22. Johnson v. McIntosh
    Search
  23. Clark v. Smith
    Search
  24. Lattimer v. Poteet
    Search
  25. In Johnson v. McIntosh
    Search
  26. private purchases of Indian land that occurred in 1773 and 1775 without the Crown's consent. Subsequently, in Marsh v. Brooks
    Search
  27. on an Indian right to occupancy and use, is not open to question. This is the result of the decision in Johnson v. McIntosh
    Search
  28. against trespassers on their land. United States v. Santa
    Search
  29. assumed that the Oneidas could bring a common law action to vindicate their aboriginal rights. Citing United States v. Santa
    Search
  30. Id. at 414 U. S. 674 (citing United States v. Forness
    Search
  31. F.2d 928 (CA2), cert. denied sub nom. City of Salamanca v. United
    Search
  32. Acts preempted whatever right of action the Oneidas may have had at common law, relying on our decisions in Milwaukee v. Illinois
    Search
  33. U. S. 304 (1981) ( Milwaukee II ), and Middlesex County Sewerage Authority v. National
    Search
  34. rights. Decisions of this Court also contradict petitioners' argument for preemption. Most recently, in Wilson v. Omaha
    Search
  35. Id. at 442 U. S. 664 . See also Fellows v. Blacksmith
    Search
  36. See Page 470 U. S. 241 Johnson v. Railway
    Search
  37. Express Agency, Inc., 421 U. S. 454 , 421 U. S. 465 (1975). See also Occidental Life Ins. Co. v. EEOC
    Search
  38. Thus, it is well established that treaties should be construed liberally in favor of the Indians, Choctaw Nation v. United
    Search
  39. U. S. 665 , 224 U. S. 675 (1912), with ambiguous provisions interpreted to their benefit, McClanahan v. Arizona
    Search
  40. Winters v. United
    Search
  41. Washington v. Washington
    Search
  42. this Court accordingly has refused to find that Congress has abrogated Indian treaty rights. Menominee Tribe v. United
    Search
  43. United States v. Santa
    Search
  44. id. at 354 U. S. 345 (citing Cramer v. United
    Search
  45. involving such matters necessarily entails nonjusticiable political questions. Delaware Tribal Business Committee v. Weeks
    Search
  46. U. S. 73 , 430 U. S. 83 -84 (1977). Accord, United States v. Sioux
    Search
  47. Nation, 448 U. S. 371 , 448 U. S. 413 (1980). See also Baker v. Carr
    Search
  48. these cases. The counties cite no cases in which analogous decisions provided the basis for nonjusticiability. Cf. INS v. Chadha
    Search
  49. arises most of the time, if not always, in the area of foreign affairs. Baker v. Carr
    Search
  50. Gilligan v. Morgan
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial