Legal Opinion

Ackley v. United States

United States Court of Claims

Decided April 30, 1987No. 460-78PublishedCited by 6 opinions

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

  1. Santa Clara Pueblo v. MartinezSupreme Court of the United States · 1978
  2. National Ass'n for the Advancement of Colored People v. New YorkSupreme Court of the United States · 1973
  3. Sumitomo Metals Industries, Ltd. v. Babcock & Wilcox Co.Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1982
  4. Cheyenne-Arapaho Tribes of Indians v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1983
  5. Georgia-Pacific Corp. v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1981

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. Eskridge Research Corp. v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2010
  2. John R. Sand & Gravel Co. v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2004
  3. Osage Tribe v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2008
  4. Chippewa Cree Tribe of Rocky Boy's Reservation v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2009
  5. 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.

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

Powered by the Exa API