Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part
Sioux Tribe v. United States
United States Court of Claims
Decided July 19, 1974No. Appeal No. 13-72; Ind. Cl. Comm. Docket Nos. 74 and 332-C; Consolidated Docket Nos. 74 and 332-C; 22 Ind. Cl. Comm. 344 (1969); 23 Ind. Cl. Comm. 419 (1970); 24 Ind. Cl. Comm. 147 (1970); 24 Ind. Cl. Comm. 208 (1970); 24 Ind. Cl. Comm. 364 (1971); 27 Ind. Cl. Comm. 49 (1972); 27 Ind. Cl. Comm. 79 (1972); 28 Ind. Cl. Comm. 204 (1972)Published
1Concurring in part, dissenting in partSkelton, Judge
I concur with the opinion of the majority in awarding that part of Royce 410 to the Yankton Tribe that the majority opinion describes; and also the decision of the majority that the claim of the Docket 74 plaintiffs, first asserted in their amended petition of March 8, 1972, that the 1851 Treaty of Fort Laramie had taken 17 percent of their land south and west of the Missouri River and given it to the Yankton Tribe was barred by limitations because it was filed more than 20 years too late. I also agree with the majority in denying recovery to all plaintiffs of Royce 411 and the “no man’s…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Baltimore Steamship Co. v. PhillipsSupreme Court of the United States · 1927
- The Snoqualmie Tribe of Indians, on Its Own Behalf, and on Relation of the Skykomish Tribe of Indians v. The United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1967
- Blackfeet & Gros Ventre Tribes of Indians v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1954
- Sioux Tribe of Indians v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1956
- United States v. Kiowa, Comanche & Apache TribesUnited States Court of Claims · 1973
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.