Cluster 420797 (1983)
green
· 126 citation events
across 18 courts.
Showing the 47 strongest citers on record
(one row per citing case, strongest signal kept).
Treatment trajectory · 1983 → 2026 · click a year to view the case as of then
198320042026
Sort:
By significance ·
Most recent
yellow
Holly v. Totus (1983)
But see, Babbitt Ford, Inc. v. Navajo Indian Tribe, 710 F.2d 587, 599 (9th Cir.1983) ("Neither Merrion nor the language of the IRA requires a tribe to adopt a constitution before exercising civil jurisdiction over non-Indians".)
green
James R. Smith v. Salish Kootenai College Court of Appeals of the Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes of … (2006)
“Indian tribes have long been recognized as sovereign entities, ‘possessing attributes of sovereignty over both their members and their territory.’ ” Babbitt Ford, Inc. v. Navajo Indian Tribe, 710 F.2d 587, 591 (9th Cir.1983) (quoting United States v. Wheeler, 435 U.S. 313, 323 , 98 S.Ct. 1079 , 55 L.Ed.2d 303 (1978) (quoting United States v. Mazurie, 419 U.S. 544, 557 , 95 S.Ct. 710 , 42 L.Ed.2d 706 (1975))).
green
Lexington Insurance Company v. Cindy Smith (2024)
Tribal jurisdiction stems from the principle that “Indian tribes have long been recognized as sovereign entities, ‘possessing attributes of sovereignty over both their members and their territory.’” Babbitt Ford, Inc. v. Navajo Indian Tribe, 710 F.2d 587, 591 (9th Cir. 1983) (quoting United States v. Wheeler, 435 U.S. 313, 323 (1978)).
quoting United States v. Wheeler, 435 U.S. 313, 323 (1978)
green
Hardin v. White Mountain Apache Tribe (1985)
Hardin's exclusion falls within the Tribe's civil powers. "[T]he regulation is designed to keep reservation peace and protect the health and safety of tribal members," Babbitt Ford, Inc. v. Navajo Indian Tribe, 710 F.2d 587, 593 (9th Cir.1983), cert. denied, 466 U.S. 926 , 104 S.Ct. 1707 , 80 L.Ed.2d 180 (1984), and as such is a permissible and "necessary exercise of tribal self-government and territorial management." Id; see Montana, 450 U.S. at 564 , 101 S.Ct. at 1257-58 .
green
Hardin v. White Mountain Apache Tribe (1985)
Hardin's exclusion falls within the Tribe's civil powers. "[T]he regulation is designed to keep reservation peace and protect the health and safety of tribal members," Babbitt Ford, Inc. v. Navajo Indian Tribe, 710 F.2d 587, 593 (9th Cir.1983), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 104 S.Ct. 1707 , 80 L.Ed.2d 180 (1984), and as such is a permissible and "necessary exercise of tribal self-government and territorial management." Id.; see Montana, 450 U.S. at 564 , 101 S.Ct. at 1257 .
green
Hardin v. White Mountain Apache Tribe (1985)
Hardin’s exclusion falls within the Tribe’s civil powers. “[T]he regulation is designed to keep reservation peace and protect the health and safety of tribal members,” Babbitt Ford, Inc. v. Navajo Indian Tribe, 710 F.2d 587, 593 (9th Cir.1983), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 104 S.Ct. 1707 , 80 L.Ed.2d 180 (1984), and as such is a permissible and “necessary exercise of tribal self-government and territorial management.” Id.; see Montana, 450 U.S. at 564 , 101 S.Ct. at 1257 .
green
Hardin v. White Mountain Apache Tribe (1985)
Hardin’s exclusion falls within the Tribe’s civil powers. “[T]he regulation is designed to keep reservation peace and protect the health and safety of tribal members,” Babbitt Ford, Inc. v. Navajo Indian Tribe, 710 F.2d 587, 593 (9th Cir.1983), cert. denied, 466 U.S. 926 , 104 S.Ct. 1707 , 80 L.Ed.2d 180 (1984), and as such is a permissible and “necessary exercise of tribal self-government and territorial management.” Id; see Montana, 450 U.S. at 564 , 101 S.Ct. at 1257-58 .
green
Smith v. Salish Kootenai College (2006)
“Indian tribes have long been recognized as sovereign enti- ties, ‘possessing attributes of sovereignty over both their members and their territory.’ ” Babbitt Ford, Inc. v. Navajo Indian Tribe, 710 F.2d 587, 591 (9th Cir. 1983) (quoting United States v. Wheeler, 435 U.S. 313, 323 (1978) (quoting United States v. Mazurie, 419 U.S. 544, 557 (1975))).
quoting United States v. Wheeler, 435 U.S. 313, 323 (1978) (quoting United States v. Mazurie, 419 U.S. 544, 557 (1975))
green
United States of America, and Spokane Tribe of Indians, Plaintiff-In-Intervention-Appellant v. Barbara J. And… (1984)
This civil authority over non-Indians which the tribe retains, “derives not only from the tribe’s inherent power necessary to self-government and territorial management, but also from the power to exclude nonmembers from tribal land.” Babbitt Ford, Inc. v. Navajo Indian Tribe, 710 F.2d 587, 592 (9th Cir.1983).
green
Lexington Insurance Company v. Cindy Smith (2024)
The most important of these principles is that “Indian tribes have long been recognized as sovereign entities, ‘possessing attributes of sovereignty over both their members and their territory.’” Babbitt Ford, Inc. v. Navajo Indian Tribe, 710 F.2d 587, 591 (9th Cir. 1983) (quoting United States v. Wheeler, 435 U.S. 313, 323 (1978)).
quoting United States v. Wheeler, 435 U.S. 313, 323 (1978)
green
Means v. Navajo Nation (2005)
R.Crim.P. 7(a)(2). 78 See Navajo Nation Code tit. 1. 79 Treaty between the United States of America and the Navajo Tribe of Indians, June 1, 1868, U.S.-Navajo, 15 Stat. 667 80 Id. 81 Id. 82 Cf. Tsosie v. United States, 825 F.2d 393, 400-02 (Fed.Cir.1987); Hebah v. United States, 192 Ct.Cl. 785 , 428 F.2d 1334, 1338-40 (1970). 83 See Babbitt Ford, Inc. v. Navajo Indian Tribe, 710 F.2d 587, 595-98 (9th Cir.1983); Arizona ex rel.
green
Means v. Navajo Nation (2005)
V; cf. Fed.R.Crim.P. 7(a)(2). 70 See Navajo Nation Code tit. 1. 71 Treaty between the United States of America and the Navajo Tribe of Indians, June 1, 1868, U.S.-Navajo, 15 Stat. 667 72 Id. 73 Id. 74 Cf. Tsosie v. United States, 825 F.2d 393, 400-02 (Fed.Cir.1987); Hebah v. United States, 192 Ct.Cl. 785 , 428 F.2d 1334, 1338-40 (Ct.Cl.1970). 75 See Babbitt Ford, Inc. v. Navajo Indian Tribe, 710 F.2d 587, 595-98 (9th Cir.1983); Arizona ex rel.
green
Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakima Indian Nation v. Jim Whiteside, and Philip Brendale, Confederated… (1987)
Anderson, 736 F.2d at 1364 ; Babbitt Ford, Inc. v. Navajo Indian Tribe, 710 F.2d 587, 592 (9th Cir.1983), cert. denied, 466 U.S. 926 , 104 S.Ct. 1707 , 80 L.Ed.2d 180 (1984).
Anderson, 736 F.2d at 1364 ; Babbitt Ford, Inc. v. Navajo Indian Tribe, 710 F.2d 587, 592 (9th Cir.1983), cert. denied, 466 U.S. 926 , 104 S.Ct. 1707 , 80 L.Ed.2d 180 (1984).
green
Juan Segundo v. City of Rancho Mirage, a Municipal Corporation, Jean Chormicle Kapp v. City of Cathedral City… (1987)
See Agua Caliente Band of Mission Indians v. County of Riverside, 442 F.2d 1184, 1185 (9th Cir.1971), cert. denied, 405 U.S. 933 , 92 S.Ct. 930 , 30 L.Ed.2d 809 (1972); Babbitt Ford, Inc. v. Navajo Indian Tribe, 710 F.2d 587, 594 (9th Cir.1983), cert. denied, 466 U.S. 926 , 104 S.Ct. 1707 , 80 L.Ed.2d 180 (1984).
green
The Chemehuevi Indian Tribe v. California State Board of Equalization George R. Reilly Iris Stankey William M… (1985)
Babbit Ford, 710 F.2d at 590. 11 The Board relies, as well, on some statements regarding the nature of sovereign immunity contained in Snow.
green
R.J. Williams Company, Richard J. Williams and Fireman's Fund Insurance Company v. Fort Belknap Housing Autho… (1983)
Bell v. Hood, 327 U.S. 678, 682-85 , 66 S.Ct. 773, 776-77 , 90 L.Ed. 939 (1946); Babbitt Ford, Inc. v. Navajo Indian Tribe, 710 F.2d 587, 591 (9th Cir.1983).
green
Begay v. Roberts (1990)
Babbitt Ford, Inc. v. Navajo Indian Tribe, 710 F.2d 587, 591 (9th Cir.1983), ce rt. denied, 466 U.S. 926 , 104 S.Ct. 1707 , 80 L.Ed.2d 180 (1984).
green
Red Fox v. Hettich (1993)
Babbitt Ford, 710 F.2d at 591.
green
Tracy v. Superior Court (1991)
See, e.g., Montana v. United States, 450 U.S. 544, 565 , 101 S.Ct. 1245, 1258 , 67 L.Ed.2d 493 (1981) ("Indian tribes retain inherent sovereign power to exercise some forms of civil jurisdiction over non-Indians"; in particular the tribes may regulate "the activities of nonmembers who enter consensual relationships with the tribe or its members, through commercial dealing, contracts, leases or other arrangements"); Babbitt Ford, 710 F.2d at 593 (tribal court appropriately ex…
tribal court appropriately exercised civil jurisdiction over non-Indian automobile dealer who repossessed automobile on the reservation, in violation of tribal law, even where contract with Indian was entered into off the reservation
The court pointed to the exclusion power and its application to those doing business within the Navajo Nation: Nonmembers lawfully entering tribal lands — for example, pursuant to contract with the tribe — nonetheless remain ‘subject to the tribe’s power to exclude them.’ A tribe has the power ‘to place conditions on entry, on continued presence, reservation conduct....’ [and] nonmember[s] who [enter] the jurisdiction of the tribe [remain] ‘subject to the risk that the tribe…
citation omitted; emphasis and brackets in the original
green
Ford Motor Credit Co. v. Poitra (2011)
The Court finds that genuine issues of fact exist as to whether the sale took place on the reservation. *959 However, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has explained that the first Montana exception applies when a party consents to tribal court jurisdiction: “The power to exercise tribal civil authority over non-Indians derives not only from the tribe’s inherent powers necessary to self-government and territorial management, but also from the power to exclude nonmembers fro…
Babbitt Ford, Inc. v. Navajo Indian Tribe, 710 F.2d 587, 595 (9th Cir. 1983).
green
Wilson v. Marchington (1995)
Co. v. LaPlante, 480 U.S. 9, 14 , 107 S.Ct. 971, 975 , 94 L.Ed.2d 10 (1987); Babbitt Ford, Inc. v. Navajo Indian Tribe, 710 F.2d 587, 591 (9th Cir.1983).
green
Crawford v. Genuine Parts Co. (1990)
Co. v. LaPlante, 480 U.S. 9, 14 , 107 S.Ct. 971, 975 , 94 L.Ed.2d 10 (1987); Babbitt Ford, Inc. v. Navajo Indian Tribe, 710 F.2d 587, 591 (9th Cir.1983).
green
Amigo Chevrolet, Inc. v. Lee (1988)
Babbitt Ford, Inc. v. The Navajo Indian Tribe, 710 F.2d 587, 593 (9th Cir. 1983).
green
Albert Duro v. Edward Reina, Chief of Police, Salt River Department of Public Safety, Salt River Pima-Maricop… (1988)
See Babbitt Ford, Inc. v. Navajo Indian Tribe, 710 F.2d 587 , 596 n. 9, 598 (9th Cir.1983), cert. denied, 466 U.S. 926 , 104 S.Ct. 1707 , 80 L.Ed.2d 180 (1984); Cardin v. De La Cruz, 671 F.2d 363, 364, 366 (9th Cir.) (Oliphant eliminates criminal jurisdiction only over non-Indians; yet, if extended to civil cases, it would "eliminate altogether any tribal jurisdiction over persons not members of the tribe”), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 967 , 103 S.Ct. 293 , 74 L.Ed.2d 277 (1982).
green
Albert Duro v. Edward Reina, Chief of Police, Salt River Department of Public Safety, Salt River Pima-Maricop… (1987)
See Babbitt Ford, Inc. v. Navajo Indian Tribe, 710 F.2d 587 , 596 n. 9, 598 (9th Cir.1983), cert. denied, 466 U.S. 926 , 104 S.Ct. 1707 , 80 L.Ed.2d 180 (1984); Cardin v. De La Cruz, 671 F.2d 363, 364, 366 (9th Cir.) (Oliphant eliminates criminal jurisdiction only over non-Indians; yet, if extended to civil cases, it would "eliminate altogether any tribal jurisdiction over persons not members of the tribe”), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 967 , 103 S.Ct. 293 , 74 L.Ed.2d 277 (1982).
green
National Farmers Union Insurance Companies, a Utah Corporation, and Lodge Grass School District No. 27 v. Cro… (1984)
See, e.g., Babbitt Ford, Inc. v. Navajo Indian Tribe, 710 F.2d 587, 591 (9th Cir.1983), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 104 S.Ct. 1707 , 80 L.Ed.2d 180 (1984); Cardin v. De La Cruz, 671 F.2d 363, 365 , cert. denied, 459 U.S. 967 , 103 S.Ct. 293 , 74 L.Ed.2d 277 (1982).
green
Duanna Knighton v. Cedarville Rancheria of Npi (2019)
See Brendale, 492 U.S. at 425 (“An Indian tribe’s [] power to exclude nonmembers of the tribe from its lands is not the only source of Indian regulatory authority.”). “[T]ribes have inherent sovereignty independent of that authority arising from their power to exclude.” Id. (citing Merrion, 455 U.S. at 141 ); see also Babbitt Ford, Inc. v. Navajo Indian Tribe, 710 F.2d 587, 592 (9th Cir. 1983) (“The power to exercise tribal civil authority over [nonmembers] derives not only …
green
Duanna Knighton v. Cedarville Rancheria of Npi (2019)
See Brendale, 492 U.S. at 425 (“An Indian tribe’s [] power to exclude nonmembers of the tribe from its lands is not the only source of Indian regulatory authority.”). “[T]ribes have inherent sovereignty independent of that authority arising from their power to exclude.” Id. (citing Merrion, 455 U.S. at 141 ); see also Babbitt Ford, Inc. v. Navajo Indian Tribe, 710 F.2d 587, 592 (9th Cir. 1983) (“The power to exercise tribal civil authority over [nonmembers] derives not only …
“The power to exercise tribal civil authority over [nonmembers] derives not only from the tribe’s inherent powers necessary to self- government and territorial management, but also from the power to exclude nonmembers from tribal land.” (citing Merrion, 455 U.S. at 141–44)
See Babbitt Ford, Inc. v. Navajo Indian Tribe, 710 F.2d 587, 593 (9th Cir.1983).
green
Means v. Navajo Nation (2005)
See Babbitt Ford, Inc. v. Navajo Indian Tribe, 710 F.2d 587, 595-98 (9th Cir.1983); Arizona ex rel.
green
Means v. Navajo Nation (2005)
See Babbitt Ford, Inc. v. Navajo Indian Tribe, 710 F.2d 587, 595-98 (9th Cir.1983); Arizona ex rel.
See Babbitt Ford, Inc. v. Navajo Indian Tribe, 710 F.2d 587, 593 (9th Cir.1983) (discussing inherent sovereign authority cases along with the Montana exceptions and holding automobile repossessors subject to exercise of tribal authority because they enter tribal lands and do business with members of the tribe), cert. denied, 466 U.S. 926 , 104 S.Ct. 1707 , 80 L.Ed.2d 180 (1984); Veronica L.
green
Fmc v. Shoshone-Bannock Tribes (1990)
See, e.g., Babbitt Ford, Inc. v. Navajo Indian Tribe, 710 F.2d 587 (9th Cir.1983) (car dealer subjected himself to tribal jurisdiction by conducting business with the tribe), cert. denied, 466 U.S. 926 , 104 S.Ct. 1707 , 80 L.Ed.2d 180 (1984). 21 FMC is of course correct that at some point the commercial relationship becomes so attenuated or stale that Montana's consensual relationship requirement would not be met.
green
FMC v. Shoshone-Bannock Tribes (1990)
See, e.g., Babbitt Ford, Inc. v. Navajo Indian Tribe, 710 F.2d 587 (9th Cir.1983) (car dealer subjected himself to tribal jurisdiction by conducting business with the tribe), cert. denied, 466 U.S. 926 , 104 S.Ct. 1707 , 80 L.Ed.2d 180 (1984).
Williams Co. v. Fort Belknap Housing Authority, 719 F.2d 979, 985 (9th Cir.1983) (fact that contract involved housing to be built on the reservation, to be occupied by reservation members and paid for by an agency representing the tribe, established reservation as locus of contract dispute), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 105 S.Ct. 3476 , 87 L.Ed.2d 612 (1985); see also Babbitt Ford, Inc. v. Navajo Indian Tribe, 710 F.2d 587, 592-95 (9th Cir.1983) (court upheld tribe's right t…
green
A & A Concrete, Inc. v. White Mountain Apache Tribe (1986)
Williams Co. v. Fort Belknap Housing Authority, 719 F.2d 979, 985 (9th Cir.1983) (fact that contract involved housing to be built on the reservation, to be occupied by reservation members and paid for by an agency representing the tribe, established reservation as locus of contract dispute), cert. denied, - U.S. -, 105 S.Ct. 3476 , 87 L.Ed.2d 612 (1985); see also Babbitt Ford, Inc. v. Navajo Indian Tribe, 710 F.2d 587, 592-95 (9th Cir.1983) (court upheld tribe’s right to reg…
See Babbitt Ford, Inc. v. Navajo Indian Tribe, 710 F.2d 587 (9th Cir.1983), cert. denied, — U.S. — , 104 S.Ct. 1707 , 80 L.Ed.2d 180 (1984). 8 .
green
Sage v. SICANGU OYATE HO. INC. (1991)
See also Babbitt Ford, Inc. v. Navajo Indian Tribe, 710 F.2d 587, 592 (9th Cir.1983), cert. denied, 466 U.S. 926 , 104 S.Ct. 1707 , 80 L.Ed.2d 180 (1984).
green
Smith Plumbing Co. v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. (1986)
Accord, Babbitt Ford v. Navajo Indian Tribe, 710 F.2d 587 (9th Cir.1983) (tribal court has jurisdiction over repossession on reservation of motor vehicles purchased off reservation by tribe members).
green
Stathis v. Marty Indian School (2019)
Ed. 2d 343 (1989)); see also Babbitt Ford, Inc. v. Navajo Indian Tribe, 710 F.2d 587, 592 (9th Cir. 1983). [¶19.] Here, the circuit court issued findings of fact and conclusions of law alongside its order granting the Appellees’ motion to dismiss.
green
Stathis v. Marty Indian Sch. (2019)
Ed. 2d 343 (1989) ); see also Babbitt Ford, Inc. v. Navajo Indian Tribe , 710 F.2d 587 , 592 (9th Cir. 1983). [¶19.] Here, the circuit court issued findings of fact and conclusions of law alongside its order granting the Appellees' motion to dismiss.
With respect to Congressional Indian policy, Public Law 764 followed on the heels of the Indian Reorganization Act of 1934, which “reflected a new policy of the Federal Government ... aimed to put a halt to the loss of tribal lands.” Mescalero Apache Tribe v. Jones, 411 U.S. 145, 151 , 93 S.Ct. 1267 , 36 L.Ed.2d 114 (1973); accord Babbitt Ford, Inc. v. Navajo Indian Tribe, 710 F.2d 587 , 599 n. 14 (9th Cir.1983).
green
Superior Oil Co. v. Merritt (1985)
See id. at 591 .
green
Superior Oil Co. v. United States (1985)
See also, Babbitt Ford, Inc. v. Navajo Indian Tribe, 710 F.2d 587, 592-93 (9th Cir.1983), cert. denied, — U.S. - 104 S.Ct. 1707 , 80 L.Ed.2d 180 (1984); Knight, 670 F.2d at 903-04 .