green
Positive treatment
4.7 score
Treatment trajectory · 1967 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1967
1996
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 8 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
cited
Cited "see"
Dale Roush, Individually and as Trustee of the Dale Roush Assets Trust v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company and Joel Hart
See Spann v. Lauritzen, 344 F.2d 204 (3rd Cir. 1965) reversing the judgment of the U.S. District Court, 237 F. Supp. 569 , certiorari denied 382 U.S. 1000 , 86 S. Ct. 531 , [**23] 15 L.
discussed
Cited "see"
Weeks Construction, Inc. v. Oglala Sioux Housing Authority, United States of America, and Department of Housing and Urban Development
See Poitra v. Demarrias, 502 F.2d 23 (8th Cir. 1974), cert. denied, 421 U.S. 934 , 95 S.Ct. 1664 , 44 L.Ed.2d 93 (1975) (distinguishing Ninth Circuit’s reasoning in Hot Oil Service, Inc. v. Halt, 366 F.2d 295 (9th Cir.1966) and Littell v. Nakai, 344 F.2d 486 (9th Cir.1965), cert. denied, 382 U.S. 986 , 86 S.Ct. 531 , 15 L.Ed.2d 474 (1966), which found diversity jurisdiction precluded in suits by a non-Indian against an Indian).
cited
Cited "see"
Gila River Indian Community v. Henningson, Durham & Richardson, a Nebraska Corporation, and Ranier Construction Company, Inc., an Arizona Corporation
See Littell v. Nakai, 344 F.2d 486, 488 (9th Cir. 1965), cert. denied, 382 U.S. 986 , 86 S.Ct. 531 , 15 L.Ed.2d 474 (1966); Mescalero Apache Tribe v. Martinez, 519 F.2d at 481 .
discussed
Cited "see"
Rorie v. Avenue Shipping Co.
See Spann v. Lauritzen, 344 F.2d 204 (3rd Cir. 1965) reversing the judgment of the U. S. District Court, 237 F.Supp. 569 , certiorari denied 382 U.S. 1000 , 86 S.Ct. 531 , 15 L.Ed.2d 489 (1966), holding the ship owner responsible for a longshoreman’s injuries caused by a shore-based crane.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Stock West, Inc. v. Confederated Tribes Of The Colville Reservation
The dismissal should have been based upon comity, rather than lack of subject matter jurisdiction." Wellman, 815 F.2d at 578 ; see also Littell v. Nakai, 344 F.2d 486, 489 (9th Cir.1965) (even though the litigation "falls within the letter of the diversity statute, we believe that the basic principle of diversity jurisdiction requires reference of the suit to the Navajo Tribal Courts"), cert. denied, 382 U.S. 986 , 86 S.Ct. 531 , 15 L.Ed.2d 474 (1966). 56 Indeed, the existence of diversity jurisdiction does not preclude a federal court from deferring to tribal proceedings because of comity. 57…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Stock West, Inc. v. Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation
The dismissal should have been based upon comity, rather than lack of subject matter jurisdiction.” Wellman, 815 F.2d at 578 ; see also Littell v. Nakai, 344 F.2d 486, 489 (9th Cir.1965) (even though the litigation “falls within the letter of the diversity statute, we believe that the basic principle of diversity jurisdiction requires reference of the suit to the Navajo Tribal Courts”), cert. denied, 382 U.S. 986 , 86 S.Ct. 531 , 15 L.Ed.2d 474 (1966).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Babbitt Ford, Inc., an Arizona Corporation v. The Navajo Indian Tribe, Through Its Chairman, Peterson Zah, and Tom and Lorraine Sellers, Defendants-Cross-Appellants. Gurley Motor Company, a New Mexico Corporation v. Peterson Zah, Individually and in His Capacity as Chairman of the Navajo Tribal Council
Lone Wolf v. Hitchcock, 187 U.S. 553, 556 , 23 S.Ct. 216, 217 , 47 L.Ed. 299 (1903) 4 United States v. Wheeler, 435 U.S. 313, 323 , 98 S.Ct. 1079, 1086 , 55 L.Ed.2d 303 (1978); see also Santa Clara Pueblo v. Martinez, 436 U.S. 49, 56, 72 , 98 S.Ct. 1670, 1675, 1684 , 56 L.Ed.2d 106 (1972) (Congress has plenary authority to limit, modify, or eliminate the powers of local self-government which tribes otherwise possess, but Congress' intent to do so must be clearly expressed) 5 Trans-Canada Enterprises, Ltd. v. Muckleshoot Indian Tribe, 634 F.2d 474, 476-77 (9th Cir.1980) 6 United States v. Wheel…
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Babbitt Ford, Inc. v. Navajo Indian Tribe
See also Littell v. Nakai, 344 F.2d 486, 490 (9th Cir.1965), cert. denied, 382 U.S. 986 , 86 S.Ct. 531 , 15 L.Ed.2d 474 (1966).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Littell
v.
Nakai
v.
Nakai
No. 355.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Jan 17, 1966.
Frederick Bemays Wiener and John F. Doyle for petitioner., Harold E. Mott for respondent., Solicitor General Marshall for the United States, as amicus curiae, in opposition.
Published
C. A. 9th Cir. Motion to dispense with printing respondent’s brief granted. Certiorari denied.