Legal Opinion

Rosebud Sioux Tribe, Appellant-Plaintiff v. Honorable Richard Kneip, Appellees-Defendants

Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

Decided July 16, 1975No. 74-1211PublishedCited by 38 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

TALBOT SMITH, Senior District Judge.

The complaint before us seeks that we declare that the original “boundaries of the [Rosebud Indian] reservation as fixed by the 1889 Act, were not affected by the three ‘surplus’ land statutes of 1904, 1907, and 1910.” 1 It follows, according to plaintiff’s (hereinafter the Tribe’s) theory that the areas involved, namely, all or parts of the Counties of Gregory, Tripp, Lyman and Mellette, in the State of South Dakota, remain a part of the Rosebud Reservation and are subject to the appropriate federal and tribal powers and jurisdiction. 2

As originally…

2Cases cited18 opinions

  1. McClanahan v. Arizona State Tax CommissionSupreme Court of the United States · 1973
  2. DeCoteau v. District County Court for the Tenth Judicial DistrictSupreme Court of the United States · 1975
  3. Lone Wolf v. HitchcockSupreme Court of the United States · 1903
  4. Carpenter v. ShawSupreme Court of the United States · 1930
  5. Mattz v. ArnettSupreme Court of the United States · 1973

13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by38 opinions

  1. Rosebud Sioux Tribe v. KneipSupreme Court of the United States · 1977
  2. Pittsburg & Midway Coal Mining Company v. Kee Ike Yazzie, Roselyn D. John, Romero Brown, Lewis Calamity, Peter J. Korth, and David C. BruntCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1990
  3. United States v. Long ElkCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1977
  4. Ute Indian Tribe v. State of UtahDistrict Court, D. Utah · 1981
  5. State v. PerankUtah Supreme Court · 1993

33 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API