Legal Opinion
Cobell v. Kempthorne
District Court, District of Columbia
Decided August 7, 2008No. Civil Action 96-1285 (JR)PublishedCited by 4 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM
JAMES ROBERTSON, District Judge.
In January 2008,1 found that the government had not succeeded in providing the accounting mandated by the Indian Trust Fund Management Reform Act, and that the record demonstrated the impossibility of rendering such an accounting. Cobell v. Kempthorne, 532 F.Supp.2d 37 (D.D.C.2008) (Cobell XX). On the basis of that ruling, plaintiffs ask for equitable relief in the nature of restitution, seeking the return of funds that have been received into the IIM trust in the years since 1887 but cannot now be proven to have been disbursed or credited to IIM…
2Cases cited28 opinions
- United States v. MitchellSupreme Court of the United States · 1983
- Great-West Life & Annuity Insurance v. KnudsonSupreme Court of the United States · 2002
- Bowen v. MassachusettsSupreme Court of the United States · 1988
- Hecht Co. v. BowlesSupreme Court of the United States · 1944
- Franklin v. Gwinnett County Public SchoolsSupreme Court of the United States · 1992
23 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- Elouise Cobell v. Sally JewellCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 2015
- Cobell v. SalazarCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 2012
- Cobell v. SalazarCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 2009
- County of Charles Mix v. United States Department of the InteriorDistrict Court, D. South Dakota · 2011