Legal Opinion
Charles E. Kimball v. John D. Callahan
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Decided February 26, 1974No. 73-1512PublishedCited by 73 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
EUGENE A. WRIGHT, Circuit Judge:
Plaintiffs-appellants are Klamath Indians by racial ancestry and claim rights under the Treaty of October 14, 1864, 16 Stat. 707, which established the Klamath and Modoc Reservation in Oregon. Pursuant to the Klamath Termination Act, 25 U.S.C. §§ 564-564x, plaintiffs or their ancestors elected to withdraw from the tribe and have their interest in tribal property converted into money and paid to them. 25 U.S.C. § 564d(a)(2). 1 In order to pay the withdrawing members of the tribe, part of the original tribal property was sold, the greater part being taken…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- McClanahan v. Arizona State Tax CommissionSupreme Court of the United States · 1973
- United States v. WinansSupreme Court of the United States · 1905
- Menominee Tribe of Indians v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1968
- The City Of Inglewood v. City Of Los AngelesCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1972
- Mason v. SamsDistrict Court, W.D. Washington · 1925
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by73 opinions
- United States v. WashingtonCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1985
- Santa Rosa Band of Indians v. Kings CountyCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1976
- Klamath Tribe Claims Committee v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2011
- United States v. AdairCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1983
- Oregon Department of Fish & Wildlife v. Klamath Indian TribeSupreme Court of the United States · 1985
68 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.