Twin Cities Chippewa Tribal Council v. The Minnesota Chippewa Tribe (1967)
green
· 112 citation events
across 41 courts.
Showing the 49 strongest citers on record
(one row per citing case, strongest signal kept).
Treatment trajectory · 1967 → 2026 · click a year to view the case as of then
196719962026
Sort:
By significance ·
Most recent
green
Santa Clara Pueblo v. Martinez (1978)
In addition to tribal members, 150-200 nonmembers live on the reservation. [7] See, e. g., Twin Cities Chippewa Tribal Council v. Minnesota Chippewa Tribe, 370 F. 2d 529, 533 (CA8 1967) (Due Process Clause of Fourteenth Amendment); Native American Church v. Navajo Tribal Council, 272 F. 2d 131 (CA10 1959) (freedom of religion under First and Fourteenth Amendments); Barta v. Oglala Sioux Tribe, 259 F. 2d 553 (CA8 1958), cert. denied, 358 U. S. 932 (1959) (Fourteenth Amendment…
Due Process Clause of Fourteenth Amendment
Twin Cities Chippewa Tribal Council v. Minnesota Chippewa Tribe, 370 F.2d 529, 532 (8th Cir. 1967), and the Supreme Court has recently adopted this position.
A. B., 129 U.S. App.D.C. 159, 392 F.2d 483 , 494 (C.A. 1968); Twin Cities Chippewa Tribal Council v. Minnesota Chippewa Tribe, 370 F.2d 529, 532 (C.A.8, 1967).
green
Russell Means v. Dick Wilson (1975)
Twin Cities Chippewa Tribal Council v. Minnesota Chippewa Tribe, 370 F.2d 529, 531-532 (8th Cir. 1967); Native American Church v. Navajo Tribal Council, 272 F.2d 131 , 134-135 (10th Cir. 1959).
green
7 Fair empl.prac.cas. 643, 7 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 9292 Phyllis Schlafly v. John A. Volpe, Secretary of Transpor… (1974)
In the case of action, not otherwise subject to judicial review, view, terminating . . . financial assistance upon a finding of failure to comply with any requirement imposed pursuant to section 2000d-1 . . ., any person aggrieved . . . may obtain judicial review of such action in accordance with (the provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act. 5 USC 701, et seq.) . . ..' 4 5 U.S.C. 701 et seq 5 5 U.S.C. 702 6 5 U.S.C. 704 7 5 U.S.C. 701 8 'Furthermore, the A.P.A. consti…
green
Poodry v. Tonawanda Band Of Seneca Indians (1996)
See Martinez v. Southern Ute Tribe of the Southern Ute Reservation, 249 F.2d 915, 919 (10th Cir.1957) (Due Process Clause of Fifth Amendment), cert. denied, 356 U.S. 960 , 78 S.Ct. 998 , 2 L.Ed.2d 1067 (1958); Native American Church v. Navajo Tribal Council, 272 F.2d 131 , 134 (10th Cir.1959) (free exercise of religious beliefs under First and Fourteenth Amendments); Twin Cities Chippewa Tribal Council v. Minnesota Chippewa Tribe, 370 F.2d 529, 533 (8th Cir.1967) (Due Proces…
green
Poodry v. Tonawanda Band of Seneca Indians (1996)
See Martinez v. Southern Ute Tribe of the Southern Ute Reservation, 249 F.2d 915, 919 (10th Cir.1957) (Due Process Clause of Fifth Amendment), cert. denied, 356 U.S. 960 , 78 S.Ct. 998 , 2 L.Ed.2d 1067 (1958); Native American Church v. Navajo Tribal Council, 272 F.2d 131 , 134 (10th Cir.1959) (free exercise of religious beliefs under First and Fourteenth Amendments); Twin Cities Chippewa Tribal Council v. Minnesota Chippewa Tribe, 370 F.2d 529, 533 (8th Cir.1967) (Due Proces…
green
R.J. Williams Company, Richard J. Williams and Fireman's Fund Insurance Company v. Fort Belknap Housing Autho… (1983)
Twin Cities Chippewa Tribal Council v. Minnesota Chippewa Tribe, 370 F.2d 529, 533 (8th Cir.1967); see Taiton v. Mayes, 163 U.S. 376 , 16 S.Ct. 986 , 41 L.Ed. 196 (1896); Martinez v. Southern Ute Tribe, 249 F.2d 915 , 919 (10th Cir.1957), cert. denied, 356 U.S. 960 , 78 S.Ct. 998 , 2 L.Ed.2d 1067 (1958).
green
DeVilbiss v. Small Business Administration (1981)
United States v. Testan, 424 U.S. 392, 400-02 , 96 S.Ct. 948, 954-55 , 47 L.Ed.2d 114 (1976); Duarte v. United States, 532 F.2d 850 (2d Cir. 1976); Twin Cities Chippewa Tribal Council v. Minnesota Chippewa Tribe, 370 F.2d 529, 531-32 (8th Cir. 1967).
green
Devilbiss v. Small Business Administration (1981)
United States v. Testan, 424 U.S. 392, 400-02 , 96 S.Ct. 948, 954-55 , 47 L.Ed.2d 114 (1976); Duarte v. United States, 532 F.2d 850 (2d Cir. 1976); Twin Cities Chippewa Tribal Council v. Minnesota Chippewa Tribe, 370 F.2d 529, 531-32 (8th Cir. 1967).
green
Dennis Nix v. Donald Sweeney (1978)
Smith v. Grimm, 534 F.2d 1346 , 1351 n. 6 (9th Cir. 1976); Twin Cities Chippewa Tribal Council v. Minnesota Chippewa Tribe, 370 F.2d 529, 531-32 (8th Cir. 1967); Dicke v. Cheyenne-Arapaho Tribes, Inc., 304 F.2d 113 (10th Cir. 1962); Anderson v. United States, 229 F.2d 675 (5th Cir. 1956), The above cases involved the immunity of the Federal Government, its agencies, or Indian tribes under its protection.
green
James Schantz v. Ada White Lightning and Leroy White Lightning, Jack F. Schaff v. Ada White Lightning and Ler… (1974)
We stated in Twin Cities Chippewa Tribal Council v. Minnesota Chippewa Tribe, 370 F.2d 529, 532 (8th Cir. 1967), that before a federal district court can exercise jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (a), “the issue to be considered must present a ‘federal question’ —must arise under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.
green
State Highway Commission of Missouri v. Volpe (1973)
Twin Cities Chippewa Tribal Council v. Minnesota Chippewa Tribe, 370 F.2d 529, 532 (8 Cir. 1967).
green
State Highway Commission of Missouri v. Volpe (1973)
Twin Cities Chippewa Tribal Council v. Minnesota Chippewa Tribe, 370 F.2d 529, 532 (8 Cir. 1967).
green
Sierra Club v. Hickel (1972)
Twin Cities Chippewa Tribal Council v. Minnesota Chippewa Tribe, 370 F.2d 529, 532 (8th Cir. 1967).
green
Sierra Club v. Hickel (1972)
Twin Cities Chippewa Tribal Council v. Minnesota Chippewa Tribe, 370 F.2d 529, 532 (8th Cir. 1967).
green
Norman M. Littell v. Rogers C. B. Morton, the Secretary of the Interior of the United States (1971)
State of Washington v. Udall, 417 F.2d at 1320 (9 Cir. 1969); Motah v. United States, 402 F.2d 1, 2 (10 Cir. 1968); Twin Cities Chippewa Tribal Council v. Minnesota Chippewa Tribe, 370 F.2d 529, 532 (8 Cir. 1967); Cyrus v. United States, 226 F.2d 416 (1 Cir. 1955).
green
Zimmerman v. United States Government (1970)
E. g., Pan American World Airways, Inc. v. C.A.B., 129 U.S.App.D.C. 159 , 392 F.2d 483 , 494 (1968); Twin Cities Chippewa Tribal Council v. Minnesota Chippewa Tribe, 370 F.2d 529, 532 (8 Cir.1967); Ove Gustavsson Contracting Co. v. Floete, 278 F.2d 912, 914 (2 Cir.), cert. denied, 364 U.S. 894 , 81 S.Ct. 225 , 5 L.Ed.2d 188 (1960).
green
Zimmerman v. United States Government (1970)
E. g., Pan American World Airways, Inc. v. C.A.B., 129 U.S.App.D.C. 159 , 392 F.2d 483 , 494 (1968); Twin Cities Chippewa Tribal Council v. Minnesota Chippewa Tribe, 370 F.2d 529, 532 (8 Cir.1967); Ove Gustavsson Contracting Co. v. Floete, 278 F.2d 912, 914 (2 Cir.), cert. denied, 364 U.S. 894 , 81 S.Ct. 225 , 5 L.Ed.2d 188 (1960).
green
Jones v. Freeman (1968)
Twin Cities Chippewa Tribal Council v. Minnesota Chippewa Tribe, 370 F.2d 529, 533 (8th Cir. 1967). 15 We believe that the facts to establish jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1346 (a) (2) (1964 ed.) were pleaded, although not artfully. 3 In any event, either this Court or the District Court, on remand, has power to permit amendment to avoid dismissal under jurisdictional grounds. 28 U.S.C. § 1653 (1964 ed.); e. g., Kaufman v. Western Union Telegraph Company, 224 F.2d 723 (5th …
green
Jones v. Freeman (1968)
Twin Cities Chippewa Tribal Council v. Minnesota Chippewa Tribe, 370 F.2d 529, 533 (8th Cir. 1967).
green
LaBatte v. Gangle (2024)
Bank, 554 U.S. at 337 (citation omitted); Twin Cities Chippewa Tribal Council v. Minn. Chippewa Tribe, 370 F.2d 529 , 533 (8th Cir. 1967) (“The guarantees of the Due Process clause relate solely to action by a state government and have no application to actions of Indian Tribes, acting as such.”).
“The guarantees of the Due Process clause relate solely to action by a state government and have no application to actions of Indian Tribes, acting as such.”
green
Holtz v. Oneida Airport Hotel Corporation (2020)
Martinez, 436 U.S. at 56 ; Twin Cities Chippewa Tribal Council v. Minnesota Chippewa Tribe, 370 F.2d 529, 533 (8th Cir. 1967).
green
Genskow v. Prevost (2020)
Martinez, 436 U.S. at 56 ; Twin Cities Chippewa Tribal Council v. Minnesota Chippewa Tribe, 370 F.2d 529, 533 (8th Cir. 1967).
green
Mitchell v. United States (1979)
See Naganab v. Hitchcock, 202 U.S. 473, 475-76 (1906); Affiliated Ute Citizens v. United States, 406 U.S. 128, 141-43 (1972); United States v. Eastman, 118 F.2d 421, 423 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 314 U.S. 635 (1941); Harkins v. United States, 375 F.2d 239, 240-42 (10th Cir. 1967); Twin Cities Chippewa Tribal Council v. Minnesota Chippewa Tribe, 370 F.2d 529, 531-32 (8th Cir. 1967); Motah v. United States, 402 F.2d 1, 2 (10th Cir. 1968); Vicenti v. United States, 470 F.2d 845…
green
Clark v. United States (1978)
Twin Cities Chippewa Tribal Council v. Minnesota Chippewa Tribe, 370 F.2d 529, 531-32 (8th Cir. 1967); Smith v. Grimm, 534 F.2d 1346 (9th Cir. 1976).
green
Donohue v. United States (1977)
Though it contemplates actions against the federal government, § 1331 is not, itself, a waiver of sovereign immunity against such actions, Beale v. Blount, 461 F.2d 1133,1138 (5th Cir. 1972); Twin Cities Chippewa Tribal Council v. Minnesota Chippewa Tribe, 370 F.2d 529, 532 (8th Cir. 1967); St.
green
Mid-America Regional Council v. Mathews (1976)
Twin Cities Chippewa Tribal Council v. Minnesota Chippewa Tribe, 370 F.2d 529, 532 (8th Cir. 1967).
green
Coomes v. Adkinson (1976)
Thus, this action arises under the Constitution and laws of the United States, Twin Cities Chippewa Tribal Council v. Minnesota Chippewa Tribe, 370 F.2d 529, 532 (8th Cir. 1967); Sioux Valley Empire Electric Ass’n, Inc. v. Butz, 504 F.2d 168, 173 (8th Cir. 1974), and jurisdiction exists under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 .
Twin Cities Chippewa Tribal Council v. Minnesota, 370 F.2d 529, 532 (8th Cir. 1967) has been cited as authority for rejection of the A.P.A. waiver theory, see Littell v. Morton, 445 F.2d 1207, 1212 (4th Cir. 1971), however, the Court also held that in that case the agency action complained of was discretionary, thus expressly beyond the purview of § 10 of the Act, citing Chournos v. United States, 335 F.2d 918 (10th Cir. 1964), a case wherein the A.P.A. also did not apply.
A. B., 129 U.S.App.D.C. 159 , 392 F.2d 483 (1968); Twin Cities Chippewa Tribal Council v. Minnesota Chippewa Tribe, 370 F.2d 529, 532 (8th Cir. 1967); Bramblett v. Desorby, 490 F.2d 405 (6th Cir. 1974); Opelika Nursing Home, Inc. v. Richardson, 356 F.Supp. 1338 (M.D.Ala.1973), aff’d, 490 F.2d 841 (5th Cir. 1974); International Federation of Professional and Technical Engineers v. Williams, 389 F.Supp. 287 (E.D.Va.1974), aff’d without opinion, 510 F.2d 966 (4th Cir. 1975).
Contrary to plaintiff's argument, neither 28 U.S.C. § 1331 nor the Administrative Procedure Act operates to waive sovereign immunity, Twin Cities Chippewa Tribal Council, supra, at 532; nor does the Administrative Procedure Act confer subject matter jurisdiction upon this Court.
green
Means v. Wilson (1974)
Co., 309 U.S. 506, 512 , 60 S.Ct. 653 , 84 L.Ed. 894 (1940); Twin Cities Chippewa Tribal Council v. Minnesota Chippewa Tribe, 370 F.2d 529, 532 (8th Cir. 1967).
Littell v. Morton, 445 F.2d 1207, 1213 (4th Cir. 1971) ; Washington v. Udall, 417 F.2d 1310, 1320 (9th Cir. 1969) ; Motah v. United States, 402 F.2d 1, 2 (10th Cir. 1968) ; Twin Cities Chippewa Tribal Council v. Minnesota Chippewa Tribe, 370 F.2d 529, 532 (8th Cir. 1967) ; Cyrus v. United States, 226 F.2d 416, 417 (1st Cir. 1955).
See, e.g., Arizona State Dept. of Public Welfare v. Dept. of Health, Education and Welfare, 449 F.2d 456, 464 (9th Cir. 1971), cert. denied, 405 U.S. 919 , 92 S.Ct. 945 , 30 L.Ed.2d 789 (1972); Zimmerman v. United States Government, 422 F.2d 326 , 330-331 (3rd Cir.), cert. denied, 399 U.S. 911 , 90 S.Ct. 2200 , 26 L.Ed.2d 565 (1970); Twin Cities Chippewa Tribal Council v. Minnesota Chippewa Tribe, 370 F.2d 529, 532 (8th Cir. 1967); Chournos v. United States, 335 F.2d 918, 91…
While individual Indians may be subject to suit, “Indian tribes under the tutelage of the United States are not subject to suit without the consent of Congress.” Twin Cities Chippewa Tribal Council v. Minnesota Chippewa Tribe, 370 F.2d 529, 532 (8th Cir. 1967).
green
Seneca Constitutional Rights Organization v. George (1972)
Co., 309 U.S. 506, 512 , 60 S.Ct. *50 653, 84 L.Ed. 894 (1940); Groundhog v. Keeler, 442 F.2d 674, 678 (10th Cir. 1971); Twin Cities Chippewa Tribal Council v. Minnesota Chippewa Tribe, 370 F.2d 529, 532 (8th Cir. 1967); Maryland Cas.
green
Richard P. Christy Thomas B. Guthrie Ira Perkins v. Donald P. Hodel, Secretary of the Interior United States … (1988)
See Twin Cities Chippewa Tribal Council v. Minnesota Chippewa Tribe, 370 F.2d 529, 533 (8th Cir.1967) (citing Koch v. Zuieback, 316 F.2d 1, 2 (9th Cir.1963)). 8 Plaintiffs contend that by protecting grizzly bears, the Department has transformed the bears into “governmental agents” who have physically taken plaintiffs’ property.
“A suit to enforce a right which takes its origin in the laws of the United States is not necessarily, or for that reason alone, one arising under those laws, for a suit does not so arise unless it really and substantially involves a dispute or controversy respecting the validity, construction, or effect of such a law upon the determination of which the result depends.” Littell v. Nakai, 344 F.2d 486, 488 (9th Cir. 1965), cert. denied, 382 U.S. 986 , 86 S.Ct. 531 , 15 L.Ed.2…
green
Tennyson Boe v. Fort Belknap Indian Community (1981)
It is true that 25 U.S.C. §§ 476 , 477 provide the authority and procedures whereby Indian tribes may adopt constitutions and bylaws and ratify corporate charters, but that fact alone is insufficient to confer federal question jurisdiction. 24 "A suit to enforce a right which takes its origin in the laws of the United States is not necessarily, or for that reason alone, one arising under those laws, for a suit does not so arise unless it really and substantially involves a d…
green
Warner v. Cox (1974)
See Twin Cities Chippewa Tribal Council v. Minnesota Chippewa Tribe, 370 F.2d 529 (8th Cir., 1967) ; Chournos v. United States, 335 F.2d 918 (10th Cir., 1964) ; Cyrus v. United States, 226 F.2d 416 (1st Cir., 1955).
green
John W. Warner, Secretary of the Navy v. Honorable W. Harold Cox, United States District Judge for the Southe… (1974)
See Twin Cities Chippewa Tribal Council v. Minnesota Chippewa Tribe, 370 F.2d 529 (8th Cir., 1967); Chournos v. United States, 335 F.2d 918 (10th Cir., 1964); Cyrus v. United States, 226 F.2d 416 (1st Cir., 1955).
green
Hamilton v. Nakai (1972)
See Twin Cities Chippewa Tribal Council v. Minnesota Chippewa Tribe, 8 Cir., 1967, 370 F.2d 529 ; Prairie Band of Pottawatomie Tribe v. Puckkee, 10 Cir., 1963, 321 F.2d 767 ; Martinez v. Southern Ute Tribe, 10 Cir., 1960, 273 F.2d 731 ; Martinez v. Southern Ute Tribe, 10 Cir., 1957, 249 F.2d 915 .
green
Hamilton v. Nakai (1971)
See Twin Cities Chippewa Tribal Council v. Minnesota Chippewa Tribe, 8 Cir., 1967, 370 F.2d 529 ; Prairie Band of Pottawatomie Tribe v. Puck-kee, 10 Cir., 1963, 321 F.2d 767 ; Martinez v. Southern Ute Tribe, 10 Cir., 1960, 273 F.2d 731 ; Martinez v. Southern Ute Tribe, 10 Cir., 1957, 249 F.2d 915 .
green
Jones v. Wildgen (2004)
See Twin Cities Chippewa Tribal Council v. Minn. Chippewa Tribe, 370 F.2d 529 , 533 (8th Cir.1967).
green
Crum v. Veterans of Foreign Wars (1980)
See Twin Cities Chippewa Tribal Council v. Minnesota Chippewa Tribe, 370 F.2d 529 (8th Cir. 1967) (claim under bylaws of federally incorporated tribe is not federal question); Federal Land Bank of Columbia v. Cotton, 410 F.Supp. 169 (N.D.Ga.1975) (federal corporation’s mortgage does not present federal question although, in other respects, the corporation is heavily federally regulated).
claim under bylaws of federally incorporated tribe is not federal question
green
Boston v. United States (1976)
See Twin Cities Chippewa Tribal Council v. Minnesota Chippewa Tribe, 370 F.2d 529 (8th Cir. 1967); Bramblett v. Desobry, 490 F.2d 405 (6th Cir. 1974) cert. denied, 419 U.S. 872 , 95 S.Ct. 133 , 42 L.Ed.2d 111 (1974).
green
Kipperman v. McCone (1976)
See Twin Cities Chippewa Tribal Council v. Minnesota Chippewa Tribe, 370 F.2d 529 (8 Cir. 1967); Chournos v. United States, 335 F.2d 918 (10 Cir. 1964); Cyrus v. United States, 226 F.2d 416 (1 Cir. 1955). 10 .
green
Pambrun v. BLACKFEET TRIBE, BLACKFEET IND. R., MONT. (1975)
See Twin Cities Chippewa Tribal Council v. Minnesota Chippewa Tribe, 370 F.2d 529 (8th Cir. 1967); Martinez v. Southern Ute Tribe, 249 F.2d 915 (10th Cir. 1957).