Search for: ""Montana v. United States" OR "450 U.S. 544"" Results 1 - 15 of 15
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
30 Dec 2021, 1:58 pm by Holly Brezee
United States, 450 U.S. 544 (1981) that a two-path test would be used to determine whether tribes have regulatory jurisdiction over fee simple land owned by non-tribal or non-Native persons within the boundaries of a reservation. [read post]
25 Feb 2019, 5:12 am by Matthew L.M. Fletcher
United States450 U.S. 544 (1981), to forfeit automobiles owned by non Native Americans for violation of tribal drug laws while on tribal land? [read post]
17 Jul 2015, 9:25 am by Matthew L.M. Fletcher
United States, 450 U.S. 544 (1981), because nonmember conduct occurred on land deemed to be the equivalent of non-Indian fee land, where (a) the Supreme Court has indicated that Montana’s consensual relationship exception can justify tribal jurisdiction over nonmember conduct occurring on non-Indian fee land or its equivalent, and (b) there exists a consensual relationship of the qualifying kind between the tribe and the nonmembers. 4. [read post]
26 Aug 2014, 10:32 am by Matthew L.M. Fletcher
United States, 450 U.S. 544 (1981), the Supreme Court case that gave tribal courts the authority to regulate the activities of nonmembers on reservation land owned in fee by non-Indians. [read post]
5 Dec 2013, 11:19 am by Matthew L.M. Fletcher
United States, 450 U.S. 544 (1981), and an exception for the regulation of nonmember activity that directly affects a tribe’s political integrity, economic security, health, or welfare did not apply. [read post]
6 Sep 2013, 6:06 am by Matthew L.M. Fletcher
United States, 450 U.S. 544 (1981) apply on tribal land, as this Court suggested in Nevada v. [read post]
6 Sep 2013, 6:06 am by Matthew L.M. Fletcher
United States, 450 U.S. 544 (1981) apply on tribal land, as this Court suggested in Nevada v. [read post]
26 Apr 2013, 10:19 am by Matthew L.M. Fletcher
United States, 450 U.S. 544 (1981), that generally Indian tribes lack civil authority over the conduct of nonmembers on non-Indian land within a reservation, was unlikely to apply to the facts of this case. [read post]
5 May 2011, 7:26 am by Russell Jackson
United States, 450 U.S. 544 (1981) -- also cited by plaintiffs -- the court cautioned that: The State's power over the beds of navigable waters remains subject to only one limitation:  the paramount power of the United States to ensure that such waters remain free to interstate and foreign commerce. [read post]