Legal Opinion
Mashpee Tribe v. New Seabury Corp., Mashpee Tribe v. New Seabury Corp., Mashpee Tribe v. New Seabury Corp., Matthew B. Connolly, Etc.
Court of Appeals for the First Circuit
Decided February 13, 1979No. 78-1272 to 78-1274PublishedCited by 123 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
COFFIN, Chief Judge.
Plaintiff, denominating itself the Mash-pee Tribe, claims to be a tribe of Indians that has lived in and around the town of Mashpee, Massachusetts, continuously since time immemorial. The suit is based on the Indian Nonintercourse Act which was first passed in 1790 and exists now as 25 U.S.C. § 177:
“No purchase, grant, lease, or other conveyance of lands, or of any title or claim thereto, from any Indian nation or tribe of Indians, shall be of any validity in law or equity, unless the same be made by treaty or convention entered into pursuant to the Constitution. . . . ”
Pla…
2Cases cited41 opinions
- Miranda v. ArizonaSupreme Court of the United States · 1966
- United States v. Western Pacific RailroadSupreme Court of the United States · 1956
- United States v. MazurieSupreme Court of the United States · 1975
- McClanahan v. Arizona State Tax CommissionSupreme Court of the United States · 1973
- Far East Conference v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1952
36 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by123 opinions
- Dana Leigh Thompson v. County of Franklin, William A. Hughes, Treasurer of Franklin CountyCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1994
- Putnam Resources v. Ronald M. Pateman, Ronald M. Pateman v. Frenkel & Company, Inc.Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1992
- Ivette Santiago-Negron v. Modesto Castro-Davila, Etc.Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1989
- Frank B. James v. United States Department of Health and Human ServicesCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1987
- Pejepscot Industrial Park, Inc. v. Maine Central RailroadCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 2000
118 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.