Citation network
Hagen Vs. Utah
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Nov 02, 1993
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
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
U.S. 399 (1993) October Term, 1993 Syllabus Hagen V. UtahSearch
-
such that federal jurisdiction was exclusive. The state appellate court, relying on Ute Indian Tribe v. UtahSearch
-
was outside its boundaries, and thus that petitioner's offense was subject to state criminal jurisdiction. See Solem v. BartlettSearch
-
response to an amicus brief. Pp.409-410. (b) Under this Court's traditional approach, as set forth in Solem v. BartlettSearch
-
emphasis added)-evidences a congressional purpose to terminate reservation status. See, e. g., Seymour v. SuperintendentSearch
-
DeCoteau v. DistrictSearch
-
at 745. In January 1903, this Court held that Congress can unilaterally alter reservation boundaries. Lone Wolf v. HitchSearch
-
that is not at issue in this Court. The court also held that Myton is in Indian country, relying on Ute Indian Tribe v. UtahSearch
-
granted criminal jurisdiction to the State of Utah to try crimes committed by Indians in Indian country, cf. Negonsott v. SamuelsSearch
-
Washington v. ConfederatedSearch
-
vacated petitioner's conviction. 409 The Utah Supreme Court reversed on the authority of State v. PerankSearch
-
see Solem v. BartlettSearch
-
not presented in the petition for a writ of certiorari. It there- 410 fore is not properly before us. Yee v. EscondidoSearch
-
but also expressly refused to rely upon in seeking a writ of certiorari, we turn to the merits. IV In Solem v. BartlettSearch
-
It is settled law that some surplus land Acts diminished reservations, see, e. g., Rosebud Sioux Tribe v. KneipSearch
-
County Court, 420 U. S. 425 (1975), and other surplus land Acts did not, see, e. g., Mattz v. ArnettSearch
-
see also South Dakota v. BourlandSearch
-
quoting County of Yakima v. ConfederatedSearch
-
S., at 475, we have never required any particular form of words before finding diminishment, see Rosebud Sioux Tribe v. KneipSearch
-
United States v. MidwestSearch
-
i. e., once again opened to sale or settlement-their previous public use was extinguished. See Sioux Tribe v. UnitedSearch
-
quoted in United States v. AlfordSearch
-
have uniformly equated it with a congressional purpose to terminate reservation status. 414 In Seymour v. SuperintendentSearch
-
Pittsburg & Midway Coal Mining Co. v. YazzieSearch
-
terms of the 1902 Act, with the 1905 Act simply extending the time for opening and providing for a few details. Hanson v. UnitedSearch
-
United States v. BossSearch
-
Uintah and White River Bands of Ute Indians v. UnitedSearch
-
Sowards v. MeagherSearch
-
United States v. PhiladelphiaSearch
-
FPC v. TuscaroraSearch
-
County of Oneida v. OneidaSearch
-
and the Indians' unequal bargaining power when agreements were negotiated, see, e. g., Choctaw Nation v. UnitedSearch
-
U. S. 620 , 631 (1970). Because Congress' au- 423 vest Indians of their land, see United States v. CelestineSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial