Citation network
Lincoln Vs. Vigil
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- May 24, 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
-
U.S. 182 (1993) October Term, 1992 Syllabus Lincoln, Acting Director, Indian Health Service, Et Al. V. VigilSearch
-
Federal Government, provided a basis for judicial review. The court also reasoned that this Court's decision in Morton v. RuizSearch
-
nouncements of the sort at issue here. This analysis is confirmed by Citizens to Preserve Overton Park, Inc. v. VolpeSearch
-
s notice-andcomment requirements. Finally, the Court of Appeals erred in holding that Morton v. RuizSearch
-
obscures the history of the Program, Vigil v. RhoadesSearch
-
Vigil v. RhoadesSearch
-
and the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause. The District Court granted summary judgment for respondents. Vigil v. RhoadesSearch
-
subject to the AP A's notice-and-comment procedures in terminating the Program, reasoning that our decision in Morton v. RuizSearch
-
a presumption, however, Block v. CommunitySearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
As we explained in Heckler v. ChaneySearch
-
See also Webster v. DoeSearch
-
Preserve Overton Park, Inc. v. VolpeSearch
-
See Franklin v. MassachusettsSearch
-
id., at 832. Similarly, in ICC v. LocomotiveSearch
-
desirable way. See International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace & Agricultural Implement Workers of America v. DonovanSearch
-
footnote omitted), cert. denied sub nom. Automobile Workers v. BrockSearch
-
cf. American Hospital Assn. v. NLRBSearch
-
TVA v. HillSearch
-
Federal Government. 953 F. 2d, at 1230-1231. We have often spoken of this relationship, see, e. g., Cherokee Nation v. GeorgiaSearch
-
United States v. CherokeeSearch
-
Pub. L. 97-394, 96 Stat. 1990. 195 Quick Bear v. LeuppSearch
-
serving a subgroup of beneficiaries to serving the broader class of all Indians nationwide. See Hoopa Valley Tribe v. ChristieSearch
-
b). See McLouth Steel Products Corp. v. ThomasSearch
-
Community Nutrition Institute v. YoungSearch
-
see generally Chrysler Corp. v. BrownSearch
-
of unrestricted funds from a lump-sum appropriation. Our decision in Citizens to Preserve Overton Park, Inc. v. VolpeSearch
-
in South Dakota. Nor, finally, do we think that the Court of Appeals was on solid ground in holding that Morton v. RuizSearch
-
Id., at 236 (quoting Seminole Nation v. UnitedSearch
-
Syllabus Lincoln, Acting Director, Indian Health Service, Et Al. V. VigilSearch
-
Preserve Overton Park, Inc. v. VolpeSearch
-
of the Program, Vigil v. RhoadesSearch
-
Vigil v. RhoadesSearch
-
Block v. CommunitySearch
-
ICC v. LocomotiveSearch
-
See International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace & Agricultural Implement Workers of America v. DonovanSearch
-
Automobile Workers v. BrockSearch
-
American Hospital Assn. v. NLRBSearch
-
Quick Bear v. LeuppSearch
-
See Hoopa Valley Tribe v. ChristieSearch
-
See McLouth Steel Products Corp. v. ThomasSearch
-
Seminole Nation v. UnitedSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial