Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

In Re Marriage of Skillen

Montana Supreme Court

Decided March 3, 1998No. 96-520Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partJustice Nelson

specially concurring in part and dissenting in part.

¶75 I concur with the majority that a district court, prior to assuming jurisdiction over a child custody proceeding when such jurisdiction is shared concurrently with a tribal court, must conduct an inquiry based on the factors enumerated in the majority opinion to determine whether the court should accept or decline to exercise that jurisdiction. Furthermore, I agree that in the case at bar the District Court record is unclear as to the residency of both Stacey and *430Kinsey. In this regard, due to the importance, complexity and sensitivityof…

2Cases cited26 opinions

  1. Montana v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1981
  2. Mescalero Apache Tribe v. JonesSupreme Court of the United States · 1973
  3. Oliphant v. Suquamish Indian TribeSupreme Court of the United States · 1978
  4. DeCoteau v. District County Court for the Tenth Judicial DistrictSupreme Court of the United States · 1975
  5. Fisher v. District Court of the Sixteenth Judicial District of MontanaSupreme Court of the United States · 1976

21 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