Bedoni v. Navajo-Hopi Indian Relocation Commission
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
1Opinion of the Court
SAMUEL P. KING, Senior District Judge:
INTRODUCTION
When this matter last appeared before the panel, we concluded that the redress sought by plaintiffs, i.e., monetary relief in excess of $10,000 against a United States agency, divested the district court of jurisdiction under certain limiting provisions of the Tucker Act. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1346(a)(2), 1491(a)(1). We therefore vacated the judgment of the district court and remanded for consideration of whether in the interest of justice the matter should be transferred to the court of claims.
On November 16, 1988, Congress enacted the Navajo and…
2Cases cited16 opinions
- United States v. MitchellSupreme Court of the United States · 1983
- Cherokee Nation v. State of GeorgiaSupreme Court of the United States · 1831
- Seminole Nation v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1942
- United States v. CandelariaSupreme Court of the United States · 1926
- United States v. MasonSupreme Court of the United States · 1973
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- Attakai v. United StatesDistrict Court, D. Arizona · 1990
- Smith v. LujanDistrict Court, D. Arizona · 1991
- Darrell Bedoni v. Navajo-Hopi Indian Relocation CommissionCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1989
- Begay v. Office of Navajo and Hopi Indian RelocationDistrict Court, D. Arizona · 2021
- Yazzie v. YazzieNavajo Nation Supreme Court · 2000