Ackley v. United States
United States Court of Claims
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
MARGOLIS, Judge.
Norman L. Giffen, Claire Rose Guyatt, Mary L. Hastings, Mary Ann Hygelund, *307and Carol Jane Weis, plaintiff-intervenors, have filed a motion to intervene of right in this action, pursuant to RUSCC 24(a). After considering the entire record and hearing oral argument, the court denies the motion.
FACTS
Plaintiff-intervenors claim that they possess Vi Yurok Indian blood and are lineal descendants of Indian allottees of the Hoo-pa Valley Reservation. Plaintiff-inter-venors, who are siblings, allege that they were born and raised in Alaska, adopted at an early age by…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Santa Clara Pueblo v. MartinezSupreme Court of the United States · 1978
- National Ass'n for the Advancement of Colored People v. New YorkSupreme Court of the United States · 1973
- Sumitomo Metals Industries, Ltd. v. Babcock & Wilcox Co.Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1982
- Cheyenne-Arapaho Tribes of Indians v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1983
- Georgia-Pacific Corp. v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1981
3Cited by6 opinions
- Eskridge Research Corp. v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2010
- John R. Sand & Gravel Co. v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2004
- Osage Tribe v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2008
- Chippewa Cree Tribe of Rocky Boy's Reservation v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2009
- Te-Moak Bands of Western Shoshone Indians of Nevada v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1989
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.