green
Positive treatment
Issue: parties dispute the applicable standardCA ↗
Quoted verbatim 5×
41.8 score
G Cite
cited 2× by 2 distinct cases, last quoted 2005 ·
…act as a shield against the united states,
at p. 861
⚠ not in text
cited 2× by 2 distinct cases · 2 courts ·
…exhaustion was pointless because the tribal court jurisdiction was clearly foreclosed by the sovereign immunity of the united states.
⚠ not in text
cited 2× by 2 distinct cases, last quoted 1995 ·
…is arguably a mistake of fact or law.
at p. 859
⚠ not in text
Treatment trajectory · 1986 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1986
2006
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 50 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited "but see"
United States v. Frank L. Fazio
But see, e.g., United States v. Poole, 806 F.2d 853, 853 (9th Cir.1986) (holding that the determination of “custodial interrogation is essentially factual,” and thus subject to “clearly erroneous” review), amending 794 F.2d 462 (9th Cir.1986); cf. Ceballos, 812 F.2d at 47 (the determinations of the district court are entitled to “some deference because the determination ... is inextricably intertwined with the credibility of the witnesses”). 5 The issue of coercion is determined from the perspective of a reasonable person in the position of the suspect.
discussed
Cited "but see"
United States v. Billy Lee Jorgensen
(2×)
But see, United States v. Poole, 806 F.2d 853 , amending, 794 F.2d 462 (9th Cir.1986) (fact question, reversing); United States v. Mahar, 801 F.2d 1477, 1500, n. 38 (6th Cir.1986) (same); United States v. Charles, 738 F.2d 686, 688 (5th Cir.1984) (same, reversing).
discussed
Cited "but see"
United States v. James Oliver Hocking
But see United States v. Poole, 806 F.2d 853 (9th Cir.1986) (“The determination whether a defendant was subjected to custodial interrogation is essentially factual, and is reviewable under the ‘clearly erroneous’ standard.”), amending, United States v. Poole, 794 F.2d 462 (9th Cir.1986).
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
State of California v. Del Rosa
the united states may sue indian tribes and override tribal sovereign immunity.
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Jewel v. National Security Agency
(2×)
also: Cited as authority (rule)
if an employee of the united states acts completely outside his governmental authority, he has no immunity.
examined
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Garcia v. Akwesasne Housing Authority
(3×)
also: Cited as authority (rule)
we do hold that, unlike constitutional violations, there is no per se divestiture of sovereign immunity when statutes or regulations are violated while an agent is pursuing his authorized duties.
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
League of Conservation Voters v. Trump
(2×)
also: Cited as authority (rule)
if a federal official, acting pursuant to a constitutional statute, commits an unconstitutional act, he cannot be acting on behalf of the government because his actions go beyond the scope of his authority and are ultra vires.
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Stewart v. United States
(2×)
also: Cited "see, e.g."
plenary review
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Harmon v. Waggoner
Robinson v. Jewell, 790 F.3d 910 (9th Cir. 2015). “[U]ltra vires claims rest on the official’s 21 lack of delegated power.” United States v. Yakima Tribal Court, 806 F.2d 853, 860 (9th Cir. 1986). 22 Plaintiff’s allegations fail to demonstrate that any individually named defendant acted 23 without authority to do so.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Johnson v. Kijakazi
Cal. 2016) (emphasis added) (quoting United States v. Yakima Tribal Court, 16 806 F.2d 853, 859 (9th Cir. 1986)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Perez v. Internal Revenue Service
Ind. 1984); Ross v. United 26 States, 574 F.Supp. 536 (S.D.N.Y. 1983); Lawrence v. Acree, 79 F.R.D. 669 (D.D.C. 1978). 3 Dawn v. Richmond, 861 F.2d 268 , 1988 WL 117424 (Table), at *3 (9th Cir. 1988); United States v. Yakima 27 Tribal Ct., 806 F.2d 853, 859 (9th Cir. 1986). 1 reasonable measures to guarantee the safety of the inmates.”5 Here, Plaintiff is not incarcerated and 2 claims only that he was deprived of property (stimulus checks) by the Individual Agents.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
E. v. v. Eugene Robinson, Jr.
(2×)
We subsequently relied on Pennhurst when discussing the scope of Larson’s ultra vires category in the context of federal sovereign immunity in United States v. Yakima Tribal Court, 806 F.2d 853, 860 (9th Cir. 1986); see infra p. 25.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Casino Pauma v. NLRB
Unlike state governments and private parties, “the United States may sue Indian tribes and override tribal sovereign immunity.” United States v. Yakima Tribal Court, 806 F.2d 853, 861 (9th Cir. 1986); see Cohen’s Handbook of Federal Indian Law § 7.05[1][a], p. 637 (2012) (“Indian nations are not immune from lawsuits filed against them by the United States”).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Adams v. Committee on Judicial Conduct & Disability
United States v. Yakima Tribal Court, 806 F.2d 853, 859 (9th Cir.1986) (citing Larson, 337 U.S. at 690, 696-97 , 69 S.Ct. 1457 ). 1 Because the merits of the Constitutional challenge merge with the sovereign immunity issue in this regard, the Court conducts an analysis of viability of the constitutional claim under Rule 12(b)(6) grounds, infra, at Section III.B.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Timothy White v. University of California
(2×)
Moreover, as the University points out, the United States retains the right to bring an action against a tribe, see United States v. Yakima Tribal Court, 806 F.2d 853, 861 (9th Cir.1986), so that it could act to litigate issues under NAGPRA if necessary.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
In Re GRAND JURY PROCEEDINGS
Other circuits have accordingly recognized the United States as a superior sovereign from whose suits the tribes enjoy no sovereign immunity, see, e.g., Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of Fla. v. United States, 698 F.3d 1326, 1331 (11th Cir.2012); Reich v. Mashantucket Sand & Gravel, 95 F.3d 174, 182 (2d Cir.1996); Quileute Indian Tribe v. Babbitt, 18 F.3d 1456, 1459 (9th Cir.1994); United States v. Red Lake Band of Chippewa Indians, 827 F.2d 380, 382-83 (8th Cir.1987); United States v. Yakima Tribal Court, 806 F.2d 853, 861 (9th Cir.1986); United States v. White Mountain Apache Tribe, 784 F.2d 91…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Bradley v. Tulalip Tribes
Hoopa Valley Housing v. Davis and Sherman, 7 NICS App. 34, 36 (Hoopa Valley Tribal Ct.App.2005) (citing; Hardin v. White Mountain Apache Tribe, 779 F.2d 476, 479 , (9th Cir.1985); United States v. Yakima Tribal Court, 806 F.2d 853, 861 (9th Cir.1986), cert. denied, 481 U.S. 1069 [ 107 S.Ct. 2461 , 95 L.Ed.2d 870 ] (1987)).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Tonasket v. Sargent
Techs., Inc., 523 U.S. 751 , 754, 118 S.Ct. 1700 , 140 L.Ed.2d 981 (1998); United States v. Yakima Tribal Court, 806 F.2d 853, 861 (9th Cir.1986).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Peabody Western Coal Co.
We explained, “Tribal sovereign immunity does not ‘act as a shield against the United States,’ even when Congress has not specifically abrogated tribal immunity.” Id. *1079 (quoting United States v. Yakima Tribal Ct., 806 F.2d 853, 861 (9th Cir.1986)).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Railway Co. v. Vaughn
Techs., Inc., 523 U.S. 751 , 754, 118 S.Ct. 1700 , 140 L.Ed.2d 981 (1998); United States v. Yakima, Tribal Court, 806 F.2d 853, 861 (9th Cir.1986).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Railroad Company v. Vaughn
Techs., Inc., 523 U.S. 751 , 754 (1998); United States v. Yakima Tribal Court, 806 F.2d 853, 861 (9th Cir. 1986).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Vann v. Kempthorne
Exhaustion of tribal remedies is not required, however, “where the tribal court lacks jurisdiction.” United States v. Yakima Tribal Court, 806 F.2d 853, 861 (9th Cir.1986) (concluding that “exhaustion was pointless because tribal court jurisdiction clearly was foreclosed by the sovereign immunity of the United States”).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
MacArthur v. San Juan County
United States v. Yakima Tribal Court, 806 F.2d 853, 858-60 (9th Cir.1986).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Peabody Western Coal Company
United States v. Yakima Tribal Court, 806 F.2d 853, 861 (9th Cir.1986); United States v. Red Lake Band of Chippewa Indians, 827 F.2d 380, 382 (8th Cir.1987).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Eeoc v. Peabody Coal Co.
United States v. Yakima Tribal Court, 806 F.2d 853, 861 (9th Cir. 1986); United States v. Red Lake Band of Chippewa Indians, 827 F.2d 380, 382 (8th Cir. 1987).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Doe v. Liu Qi
Chuidian, 912 F.2d at 1106 (citing United States v. Yakima Tribal Court, 806 F.2d 853, 859 (9th Cir.1986)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Karuk Tribe Housing Authority, Opinion
Quileute Indian Tribe v. Babbitt, 18 F.3d 1456, 1459-60 (9th Cir.1994); United States v. Yakima Tribal Court, 806 F.2d 853, 861 (9th Cir.1986); United States v. Red Lake Band of Chippewa Indians, 827 F.2d 380, 383 (8th Cir.1987) (“We conclude that just as a state may not assert sovereign immunity as against the federal government, [United States v.] Mississippi, 380 U.S. [128], 140-41, 85 S.Ct. 808 , 13 L.Ed.2d 717 [(1965)], neither may an Indian tribe, as a dependent nation, do so.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Nippon Miniature Bearing Corporation v. George J. Weise, Commissioner of the United States Customs Service United States Customs Service
See Larson v. Domestic & Foreign Commerce Corp., 337 U.S. 682, 690-91 , 69 S.Ct. 1457 , 93 L.Ed. 1628 (1949); United States v. Yakima Tribal Court, 806 F.2d 853, 859-60 (9th Cir.1986) (citing Larson; treating constitutional claims differently from claimed violations of regulations because the former require no waiver of sovereign immunity).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Jenness v. Confederated Tribes of the Grand Ronde Community of Oregon
U.S. v. Yakima Tribal Ct., 806 F.2d 853, 860 (9th Cir.1986).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Cabeza De Vaca Land & Cattle Co., LLC v. Babbitt
Larson v. Domestic & Foreign Commerce Corp., 337 U.S. 682, 689-90, 701-02 , 69 S.Ct. 1457 , 93 L.Ed. 1628 (1949); Painter v. Shalala, 97 F.3d 1351, 1358 (10th Cir.1996); United States v. Yakima Tribal Court, 806 F.2d 853, 859 (9th Cir.1986).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Thompson v. Crow Tribe of Indians
United States v. Yakima Tribal Court (9th Cir. 1986), 806 F.2d 853, 859 (citations omitted).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Montana v. Gilham
United States v. Yakima Tribal Court, 806 F.2d 853, 858-60 (9th Cir.1986).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
98 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 298, 98 Daily Journal D.A.R. 407 State of Montana v. Toni A. Gilham, Individually and as Personal Representative of the Estate of Christine Marie Gilham
United States v. Yakima Tribal Court, 806 F.2d 853, 858-60 (9th Cir.1986).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Montana v. Gilham
United States v. Yakima Tribal Court, 806 F.2d 853, 858-60 (9th Cir.1986).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
97 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 8139, 97 Daily Journal D.A.R. 13,152 State of Montana v. Toni A. Gilham, Individually and as Personal Representative of the Estate of Christine Marie Gilham
United States v. Yakima Tribal Court, 806 F.2d 853, 858-60 (9th Cir.1986).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Basil Cook Enterprises, Inc. v. St. Regis Mohawk Tribe
See Blue Legs v. United States Bureau of Indian Affairs, 867 F.2d 1094, 1097-98 (8th Cir.1989) (finding no exhaustion required because the tribal court's jurisdiction over a suit claiming tribal sanitation dumps were maintained in violation of federal law was foreclosed by the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act); United States v. Yakima Tribal Court, 806 F.2d 853, 860-61 (9th Cir.1986) (finding that exhaustion is not required because tribal suit seeking to enjoin United States' construction of a irrigation canal through land located on the Yakima Tribe's reservation was foreclosed by the s…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Basil Cook Enterprises, Inc. v. St. Regis Mohawk Tribe
See Blue Legs v. United States Bureau of Indian Affairs, 867 F.2d 1094,1097-98 (8th Cir.1989) (finding no exhaustion required because the tribal court’s jurisdiction over a suit claiming tribal sanitation dumps were maintained in violation of federal law was foreclosed by the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act); United States v. Yakima Tribal Court, 806 F.2d 853, 860-61 (9th Cir.1986) (finding that exhaustion is not required because tribal suit seeking to enjoin United States’ construction of a irrigation canal through land located on the Yakima Tribe’s reservation was foreclosed by …
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Kerr-McGee Corp. v. Farley
In fact, tribal courts rarely lose the first opportunity to determine jurisdiction because of an “express jurisdictional prohibition.” Cases in which tribal courts are not given the first opportunity to determine their jurisdiction typically involve situations where the federal court has exclusive jurisdiction, see Blue Legs v. Bureau of Indian Affairs, 867 F.2d 1094 , 1097-98 (8th Cir.1989), or where tribal jurisdiction is foreclosed by sovereign immunity, see United States v. Yakima Tribal Court, 806 F.2d 853, 860-61 (9th Cir.1986).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Alaska v. Babbitt
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
An action is not ultra vires simply because it “is arguably a mistake of fact or law.” United States v. Yakima Tribal Court, 806 F.2d 853, 859-60 (9th Cir.1986), cert. denied, 481 U.S. 1069 , 107 S.Ct. 2461 , 95 L.Ed.2d 870 (1987).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
95 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 7815, 95 Daily Journal D.A.R. 13,423 State of Alaska v. Bruce Babbitt, Secretary of the Interior United States of America Evelyn Foster
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
Neither argument was expressly raised in Albert. 12 An action is not ultra vires simply because it "is arguably a mistake of fact or law." United States v. Yakima Tribal Court, 806 F.2d 853, 859-60 (9th Cir.1986), cert. denied, 481 U.S. 1069 , 107 S.Ct. 2461 , 95 L.Ed.2d 870 (1987).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Enrique Carmargo, United States of America v. Carlos Arturo Quijano
"The determination whether a defendant was subjected to custodial interrogation is essentially factual, and is reviewable under the 'clearly erroneous' standard." Booth, 806 F.2d at 853.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Quileute Indian Tribe v. Babbitt
See United States v. White Mountain Apache Tribe, 784 F.2d 917, 920 (9th Cir.1986); see also United States v. Red Lake Band of Chippe wa Indians, 827 F.2d 380 , 382 (8th Cir.1987) (tribes may not interpose sovereign immunity against the United States), cert. denied, 485 U.S. 935 , 108 S.Ct. 1109 , 99 L.Ed.2d 270 (1988); United States v. Yakima Tribal Court, 806 F.2d 853, 861 (9th Cir.1986) (United States may override tribal sovereign immunity), cer t. denied, 481 U.S. 1069 , 107 S.Ct. 2461 , 95 L.Ed.2d 870 (1987).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Quileute Indian Tribe v. Babbitt
See United States v. White Mountain Apache Tribe, 784 F.2d 917, 920 (9th Cir.1986); see also United States v. Red Lake Band of Chippewa Indians, 827 F.2d 380, 382 (8th Cir.1987) (tribes may not interpose sovereign immunity against the United States), cert. denied, 485 U.S. 935 , 108 S.Ct. 1109 , 99 L.Ed.2d 270 (1988); United States v. Yakima Tribal Court, 806 F.2d 853, 861 (9th Cir.1986) (United States may override tribal sovereign immunity), cert. denied, 481 U.S. 1069 , 107 S.Ct. 2461 , 95 L.Ed.2d 870 (1987).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Church of Scientology Int'l v. Kolts
United States v. Yaki *879 ma Tribal Court, 806 F.2d 853, 858 (9th Cir.1986), cert. denied 481 U.S. 1069 , 107 S.Ct. 2461 , 95 L.Ed.2d 870 (1987).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Joseph William Kipp
Krantz v. Briggs, 983 F.2d 961, 963 (9th Cir.1993); United States v. Poole, 806 F.2d 853, 853 (9th Cir.1986).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
George F. Semeil v. Michael O'COnnOr
United States v. Yakima Tribal Court, 806 F.2d 853, 857 (9th Cir.1986), cert. denied, 481 U.S. 1069 (1987).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Richard H. Krantz v. Phillip Briggs, Superintendent, Cook Inlet Pretrial Facility, Alaska Department of Corrections
United States v. Poole, 806 F.2d 853, 853 (9th Cir.1986) (cus *964 tody determination is “essentially factual” and is reviewed for clear error), amending in part 794 F.2d 462 (9th Cir.1986); Wauneka, 770 F.2d at 1438 (same); Booth, 669 F.2d at 1235-36 (same); see also Miller v. Fenton, 474 U.S. 104, 113 , 106 S.Ct. 445, 451 , 88 L.Ed.2d 405 (1985) (“an issue does not lose its factual character merely because its resolution is dispositive of the ultimate constitutional question").
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
In Re Richard D. Greene and Donna J. Greene, Husband and Wife, Debtors, Ross Richardson, Chapter 7, Trustee-Appellee v. Mt. Adams Furniture
(2×)
Thus, the Yakimas’ lack of immunity to suit by the United States itself (United States v. Yakima Tribal Ct., 806 F.2d 853, 861 (9th Cir.1986); cert. denied, 481 U.S. 1069 , 107 S.Ct. 2461 , 95 L.Ed.2d 870 (1987)) does not render it amenable to suit by the trustee.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Burlington Northern Railroad Company v. The Blackfeet Tribe of the Blackfeet Indian Reservation Blackfeet Tribal Business Council Blackfeet Tax Administration Division Earl Old Person, Chairman Archie St. Goddard, Vice-Chairman Marvin Weatherwax, Secretary Eloise C. Cobell, Treasurer, Burlington Northern Railroad Company v. Fort Peck Tribal Executive Board Fort Peck Tribal Tax Commission Assiniboine & Sioux Tribes of the Fort Peck Indian Reservation Kenneth E. Ryan, Tribal Chairman Paula Brien, Tribal Secretary/accountant
The Blackfeet Tribe contends their officials are not amenable to suit, relying on United States v. Yakima Tribal Court, 806 F.2d 853, 861 (9th Cir.1986), and Hardin v. White Mountain Apache Tribe, 779 F.2d 476, 479-80 (9th Cir.1985).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Brown on Behalf of Brown v. Rice
Cf., U.S. v. Yakima Tribal Court, 806 F.2d 853, 861 (9th Cir.1986) (suit against tribal court permitted only because United States may sue Indian tribes and override sovereign immunity); Settler v. Yakima Tribal Court, 419 F.2d 486, 490 (9th Cir.1969) (habeas action against tribal court remanded for district court to name precise individual who heads tribal court or all individual members of tribal court as respondents).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff/Appellee,
v.
Robert James POOLE, Respondent/Appellant
v.
Robert James POOLE, Respondent/Appellant
CA 84-5195.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
Dec 17, 1986.
Duane J. Deskins, Asst. U.S. Atty., Los Angeles, Cal., for plaintiff/appellee., Brad Brian, Los Angeles, Cal., for respondent/ appellant.
Skopil, Canby, Solomon.
Cited by 20 opinions | Published
Citer courts: D. Alaska (1) · District of Columbia Court of … (1)
ORDER
The panel as constituted in the above case has voted to deny the petition for rehearing and reject the suggestion for rehearing en banc.
The panel has voted to amend the opinion as follows. Delete the body of the section entitled “A. Standard of Review” on page 7 of the slip opinion, and substitute the following:
The determination whether a defendant was subjected to custodial interrogation is essentially factual, and is reviewable under the “clearly erroneous” standard. United States v. Wauneka, 770 F.2d 1434, 1438 (9th Cir.1985) (citing United States v. McConney, 728 F.2d 1195 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 824, 105 S.Ct. 101, 83 L.Ed.2d 46 (1984)); United States v. Combs, 762 F.2d 1343, 1348 (9th Cir.1985).
In the first line of page 11 of the slip opinion, delete the words “then applicable.”
In the middle paragraph of page 11, change the next-to-last sentence to read: “We conclude that the district court clearly erred in ruling that the questioning about name, date of birth and place of birth did not constitute interrogation.”
Add a citation to United States v. Perez, 776 F.2d 797, 799 (9th Cir.1986), on page 8, six lines from the bottom, after “see also ” and before the citation to United States v. Booth.
The full court has been advised of the suggestion of rehearing en banc, and a majority of the judges of the court has voted against it. Fed.R.App.P. 35(b).
The petition for rehearing is denied and the suggestion for rehearing en banc is rejected.