Legal Opinion

Pueblo of San Ildefonso v. Daniel Ridlon and Regents of the University of California

Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit

Decided December 24, 1996No. 95-2197PublishedCited by 11 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

GODBOLD, Senior Circuit Judge:

Appellant Pueblo of San Ildefonso (“Pueblo”), a federally recognized Indian tribe, filed an action under 25 U.S.C. § 3001-3013, the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (“NAGPRA”), to secure the return of a piece of Native American pottery from Appellees Daniel Ridlon and the Regents of the University of California. On cross-motions for summary judgment the District Court construed Ridlon’s motion as a motion to dismiss for want of subject matter jurisdiction and dismissed the Pueblo’s action pursuant to F.R.C.P. 12(b)(1). We vacate the judgment…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Joe Aulston and Lola Aulston v. United States of America, and Shell Western E & P, Intervenors-AppelleesCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1990
  2. Donald O. BERNSTEIN, Petitioner, v. Louis W. SULLIVAN, Secretary, Department of Health and Human Services, RespondentCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1990

3Cited by11 opinions

  1. Exby-Stolley v. Board of County CommissionersCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 2020
  2. John Thorpe v. Borough of Jim ThorpeCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 2014
  3. San Carlos Apache Tribe v. United StatesDistrict Court, D. Arizona · 2003
  4. Duy Dac Ho v. GreeneCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 2000
  5. Bonnichsen v. United States, Department of the ArmyDistrict Court, D. Oregon · 1997

6 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