Legal Opinion · Dissent

Harris v. Young

South Dakota Supreme Court

Decided July 3, 1991No. 17237Published

1DissentHenderson, Justice

ISSUE I

I concur.

ISSUE II

I specially concur. Essentially, an Indian tribe is not a state within the meaning of the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act (UCCJA). As held by the case of Malaterre v. Malaterre, 293 N.W.2d 139, 144 (N.D.1980), the UCCJA pertains to situations where there are jurisdictional disputes with sister states. Here, the child and mother live within South Dakota but reside on the Cheyenne Indian Reservation and therefore come within the purview of the federal Act of August 15,1953, 67 Stat. 558, now codified at 18 U.S.C. § 1162. South Dakota has never effectively assumed…

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. White Mountain Apache Tribe v. BrackerSupreme Court of the United States · 1980
  2. Iowa Mutual Insurance v. LaPlanteSupreme Court of the United States · 1987
  3. Union Bank v. WolasSupreme Court of the United States · 1991
  4. State v. Spotted HorseSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1990
  5. Matter of Guardianship of DLL & CLLSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1980

5 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