John Bartlett v. Herman S. Solem, Warden, South Dakota State Penitentiary & Mark v. Meierhenry, Attorney Gen., State of South Dakota, 691 F.2d 420 (8th Cir. 1982). · Go Syfert
Search
John Bartlett v. Herman S. Solem, Warden, South Dakota State Penitentiary & Mark v. Meierhenry, Attorney Gen., State of South Dakota, 691 F.2d 420 (8th Cir. 1982). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
16 citation events (1 in the last 25 years) across 5 distinct courts.
Top citers, strongest first. 4 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Peltier
E.D. Mich. · 2004 · confidence medium
Bartlett v. Solem 691 F.2d 420, 421 (8th Cir.1982) (affirming grant of habeas corpus petition on the ground that the state lacked jurisdiction to prosecute a tribal member for an offense committed within Indian Country), aff'd, 465 U.S. 463 , 467 n. 8, 104 S.Ct. 1161 , 79 L.Ed.2d 443 (1984); see also Cheyenne-Arapaho Tribes v. Oklahoma, 618 F.2d 665, 668 (10th Cir.1980) (stating that “states have no authority over Indians in Indian Country unless it is expressly conferred by Congress”).
cited Cited "see" United States v. Neil D. Standish
8th Cir. · 1993 · signal: see · confidence high
See Solem v. Bartlett, 465 U.S. 463 , 104 S.Ct. 1161 , 79 L.Ed.2d 443 (1984) (relating to Cheyenne River Sioux Reservation), aff'g 691 F.2d 420 (8th Cir.1982) (en banc).
discussed Cited "see" United States v. John David Bartlett (2×)
8th Cir. · 1986 · signal: see · confidence high
See Solem v. Bartlett, 465 U.S. 463 , 104 S.Ct. 1161 , 79 L.Ed.2d 443 (1984), aff'g 691 F.2d 420 (8th Cir.1982), aff'g No. 82-3009 (D.S.D.
discussed Cited "see, e.g." United States v. David James Baker
10th Cir. · 1990 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence medium
See United States v. Burnett, 777 F.2d 593, 596 (10th Cir.1985) (expressly noting "agreement with analysis and conclusion" in State v. Burnett, 671 P.2d 1165, 1166-68 (Okla.Crim.App.1983), which held that state criminal jurisdiction over Indian country is precluded unless state has previously manifested by affirmative political action its intent to assume jurisdiction pursuant to 25 U.S.C. § 1321 (a)), cert. denied, 476 U.S. 1106 , 106 S.Ct. 1952 , 90 L.Ed.2d 361 (1986); Langley v. Ryder, 778 F.2d 1092, 1095-96 (5th Cir.1985) (once land is determined to be Indian country, state criminal juris…
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
John BARTLETT, Appellee,
v.
Herman S. SOLEM, Warden, South Dakota State Penitentiary; And Mark v. Meierhenry, Attorney General, State of South Dakota, Appellants
82-1582.
Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.
Oct 27, 1982.
691 F.2d 420
Tom D. Tobin, Tobin Law Offices, P. C., Winner, S. D., William W. Shakely, Tobin Law Offices, P. C., Washington, D. C., for amici curiae Counties., Anthony C. Liotta, Acting Asst. Atty. Gen., Edward J. Shawaker, Janet L. Steckel, Attys., Dept, of Justice, Washington, D.C., Mark V. Meierhenry, Atty. Gen., Mark Smith, Asst. Atty. Gen., Pierre, S.D., for appellants., Richard B. Collins, Native American Rights Fund, Boulder, Colo., Robert C. Riter, Jr., Riter, Mayer, Hofer & Riter, Pierre, S.D., for appellee., W. Richard West, Jr., Washington, D. C., for amicus curiae Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe., Reid Peyton Chambers, Washington, D. C., for amicus curiae Standing Rock Sioux Tribe.
Lay, Heaney, Bright, Ross, McMillian, Arnold, Gibson.
Cited by 11 opinions  |  Published

Lead Opinion

HEANEY, Circuit Judge,

with whom

LAY, Chief Judge, and BRIGHT, ROSS and JOHN R. GIBSON, Circuit Judges, join.

The United States District Court for the District of South Dakota granted John Bartlett’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus on the ground that the State of South Dakota lacked jurisdiction to try Bartlett because his crime was committed on land that was part of the Cheyenne River Reservation. In so holding, the court relied on this Court’s opinion in United States v. Dupris, 612 F.2d 319 (8th Cir. 1979), vacated and remanded, 446 U.S. 980, 100 S.Ct. 2959, 64 L.Ed.2d 836 (1980), in which we held that the Act of May 29, 1908, 35 Stat. 460, did not diminish the boundaries of the reservation established by the Act of March 2, 1889, 25 Stat. 888. See 612 F.2d at 323.

The State of South Dakota on appeal contends that Dupris is wrongly decided and asks that the Court en banc reject the[*421] panel opinion in that case. We decline to do so and affirm the decision of the district court for the reasons set forth in United States v. Dupris, supra; United States v. Long Elk, 565 F.2d 1032 (8th Cir. 1977), and United States ex rel. Condon v. Erickson, 478 F.2d 684 (8th Cir. 1973).

The appellants argue that United States ex rel. Condon v. Erickson, supra, was decided before DeCoteau v. District County Court, 420 U.S. 425, 95 S.Ct. 1082, 43 L.Ed.2d 300 (1975), and Rosebud Sioux Tribe v. Kneip, 430 U.S. 584, 97 S.Ct. 1361, 51 L.Ed.2d 660 (1977), and the review of the 1908 act in Condon was not complete. DeCoteau and Rosebud were thoroughly analyzed by this Court in United States v. Dupris, supra, and United States v. Long Elk, supra. We conclude that the views expressed by this Court in Condon, Long Elk and Dupris are consistent with the opinions of the Supreme Court in DeCoteau and Rosebud.

Dissent

McMILLIAN, Circuit Judge,

dissenting, with whom

ARNOLD, Circuit Judge, joins.

I must respectfully dissent. For the reasons discussed in my dissenting opinion in United States v. Dupris, 612 F.2d 319, 323 (8th Cir. 1979), vacated and remanded, 446 U.S. 980, 100 S.Ct. 2959, 64 L.Ed.2d 836 (1980), I would hold that the 1908 statute diminished the boundaries of the Cheyenne River Reservation. I continue to believe that the analysis in United States v. Long Elk, 565 F.2d 1032 (8th Cir. 1977), and United States ex rel. Condon v. Erickson, 478 F.2d 684 (8th Cir. 1973), requires modification in light of Rosebud Sioux Tribe v. Kneip, 430 U.S. 584, 97 S.Ct. 1361, 51 L.Ed.2d 660 (1977), and DeCoteau v. District County Court, 420 U.S. 425, 95 S.Ct. 1082, 43 L.Ed.2d 300 (1974).