Legal Opinion
Evans v. Shoshone-Bannock Land Use Policy Commission
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Decided December 5, 2013No. 13-35003PublishedCited by 31 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
M. SMITH, Circuit Judge:
In this appeal, we consider whether the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes plausibly have the authority to regulate the land use of David Evans, a nonmember of the Tribes, who owns land in fee simple within the Fort Hall Reservation. 1 Acknowledging the general rule that tribes may not regulate nonmember conduct on such “non-Indian fee land,” the district court nevertheless held that the Tribes had a plausible basis for asserting jurisdiction. The district court therefore rejected Evans’ attempt to enjoin tribal court proceedings, ruling that Evans must first exhaust…
2Cases cited30 opinions
- Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 2008
- Marks v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1977
- Munaf v. GerenSupreme Court of the United States · 2008
- Marks v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1977
- Montana v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1981
25 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by31 opinions
- Goldman, Sachs & Co. v. City of RenoCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2014
- Fort Yates Public School Dist. v. Jamie MurphyCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 2015
- The Arc of California v. Toby DouglasCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2014
- Nationwide Biweekly Administration, Inc. v. OwenCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2017
- Epona, LLC v. County of VenturaCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2017
26 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.