Tribe motion in California

14 California opinions name it 2 courts 1985–2026 5 in the last five years

The cases below were cited by California courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.

Followed or applied (6)

Case	Followed	Cited
Riverside Cnty. Dep't of Pub. Soc. Servs. v. S.A. (In re N.G.)green calctapp5d · 2018 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 2022–2022 2 sentences 2022(A.R., supra, 77 Cal.App.5th at pp. 202, 207; see also N.G., supra, 27 Cal.App.5th at p. 484 [a child protective agency can’t neglect its inquiry duties and “ ‘then claim that the sufficiency of its efforts cannot be challenged on appeal because the record is silent’ ”].) Indeed, those tribes have no standing to intervene in a dependency case unless Indian ancestry is first uncovered and established, and thus no way of protecting their tribal interests unless child protective agencies comply with ICWA and then notify the appropriate tribe when the inquiry reveals Indian ancestry. 2022(A.R., supra, 77 Cal.App.5th at pp. 202, 207; see also N.G., supra, 27 Cal.App.5th at p. 484 [a child protective agency can’t neglect its inquiry duties and “ ‘then claim that the sufficiency of its efforts cannot be challenged on appeal because the record is silent’ ”].) Indeed, those tribes have no standing to intervene in a dependency case unless Indian ancestry is first uncovered and established, and thus no way of protecting their tribal interests unless child protective agencies comply with ICWA and then notify the appropriate tribe when the inquiry reveals Indian ancestry.	1	1
In Re Jennifer A.green calctapp · 2002 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 2016–2016 1 sentence 2016(Jennifer A., supra, 103 Cal.App.4th at p. 708 [declining to find such requirement under case law]; Cal. Rules of Court, rule 5.484(a)(2).) That rule, however, does not include the failure to object to a court’s failure to direct an agency to take steps to secure a child’s membership in a tribe under rule 5.482(c).	1	1
Szadolci v. Hollywood Park Operating Co.green calctapp · 1993 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 2014–2014 2 sentences 2014(Hawran v. Hixson (2012) 209 Cal.App.4th 256, 268 [ 147 Cal.Rptr.3d 88 ] [instead of striking portion of a reply brief, the court “g[a]ye effect to defendants’ motion [to strike improper portion of the reply brief] by disregarding issues or contentions raised for the first time in [the party’s] reply brief’]; Szadolci v. Hollywood Park Operating Co. (1993) 14 Cal.App.4th 16, 19 [ 17 Cal.Rptr.2d 356 ] [in reviewing ruling on summary judgment, the “appellate court must examine only papers before the trial court when it considered the motion.”].) 14 Although the Tribe states in its appellate brie 2014(Hawran v. Hixson (2012) 209 Cal.App.4th 256, 268 [ 147 Cal.Rptr.3d 88 ] [instead of striking portion of a reply brief, the court “g[a]ye effect to defendants’ motion [to strike improper portion of the reply brief] by disregarding issues or contentions raised for the first time in [the party’s] reply brief’]; Szadolci v. Hollywood Park Operating Co. (1993) 14 Cal.App.4th 16, 19 [ 17 Cal.Rptr.2d 356 ] [in reviewing ruling on summary judgment, the “appellate court must examine only papers before the trial court when it considered the motion.”].) 14 Although the Tribe states in its appellate brie	1	1
Hawran v. Hixsongreen calctapp · 2012 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 2014–2014 2 sentences 2014(Hawran v. Hixson (2012) 209 Cal.App.4th 256, 268 [ 147 Cal.Rptr.3d 88 ] [instead of striking portion of a reply brief, the court “g[a]ye effect to defendants’ motion [to strike improper portion of the reply brief] by disregarding issues or contentions raised for the first time in [the party’s] reply brief’]; Szadolci v. Hollywood Park Operating Co. (1993) 14 Cal.App.4th 16, 19 [ 17 Cal.Rptr.2d 356 ] [in reviewing ruling on summary judgment, the “appellate court must examine only papers before the trial court when it considered the motion.”].) 14 Although the Tribe states in its appellate brie 2014(Hawran v. Hixson (2012) 209 Cal.App.4th 256, 268 [ 147 Cal.Rptr.3d 88 ] [instead of striking portion of a reply brief, the court “g[a]ye effect to defendants’ motion [to strike improper portion of the reply brief] by disregarding issues or contentions raised for the first time in [the party’s] reply brief’]; Szadolci v. Hollywood Park Operating Co. (1993) 14 Cal.App.4th 16, 19 [ 17 Cal.Rptr.2d 356 ] [in reviewing ruling on summary judgment, the “appellate court must examine only papers before the trial court when it considered the motion.”].) 14 Although the Tribe states in its appellate brie	1	1
Ramah Navajo School Bd., Inc. v. Bureau of Revenue of NMgreen scotus · 1982 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 2006–2006 2 sentences 2006Federal Government with exclusive authority over relations with Indian tribes”].) As the Court of Appeal observed, the Indian commerce clause of article I, section 8, of the federal Constitution “cannot support tribal immunity in this case because (1) it grants a power to Congress, and Congress has not granted the tribe immunity from this suit, and (2) it concerns the regulation of commerce, and this case concerns not commerce but rather the political process.” The United States Supreme Court has described the commerce clause as a potential barrier to the exercise of state authority if the sta 2006Federal Government with exclusive authority over relations with Indian tribes”].) As the Court of Appeal observed, the Indian commerce clause of article I, section 8, of the federal Constitution “cannot support tribal immunity in this case because (1) it grants a power to Congress, and Congress has not granted the tribe immunity from this suit, and (2) it concerns the regulation of commerce, and this case concerns not commerce but rather the political process.” The United States Supreme Court has described the commerce clause as a potential barrier to the exercise of state authority if the sta	1	1
Ninigret Development Corp. v. Narragansett Indian Wetuomuck Housing Authoritygreen ca1 · 2000 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 2001–2001 1 sentence 2001(See Ninigret Development v. Narragansett Indian (1st Cir. 2000) 207 F.3d 21, 29 (Ninigret Dev.	1	1

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

Case	Negative	Cited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (15)

Case	Cited	Years
Riverside Cnty. Dep't of Pub. Soc. Servs. v. E.K. (In re K.R.) green calctapp5d · 2018 2 sentences 2024(See G.H., supra, 84 Cal.App.5th at p. 31.) A rule requiring conditional reversal when there is error in an ICWA inquiry acknowledges that the interest at issue belongs to tribes who “have no standing to intervene in a dependency case unless Native American ancestry is first uncovered and established, and thus no way of protecting their tribal interests unless child welfare agencies comply with ICWA and then notify the appropriate tribe when the inquiry reveals Native American ancestry.” (A.R., supra, 77 Cal.App.5th at pp. 201–202, italics added.) Thus, in the context of juvenile dependency ap 2024(See G.H., supra, 84 Cal.App.5th at p. 31.) A rule requiring conditional reversal when there is error in an ICWA inquiry acknowledges that the interest at issue belongs to tribes who “have no standing to intervene in a dependency case unless Native American ancestry is first uncovered and established, and thus no way of protecting their tribal interests unless child welfare agencies comply with ICWA and then notify the appropriate tribe when the inquiry reveals Native American ancestry.” (A.R., supra, 77 Cal.App.5th at pp. 201–202, italics added.) Thus, in the context of juvenile dependency ap	2	2024–2024
Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians v. Holyfield green scotus · 1989 2 sentences 2006After discussing the Mississippi Band, supra, 490 U.S. 30 , Doe, supra, 415 F.3d 1038 , and C.R.H., supra, 29 P.3d 849, cases cited ante, the Field Solicitor concluded C.R.H. was “consistent with the longstanding position of the Office of the Solicitor that a tribe in a Public Law 280 state does not have to submit a petition under § 1918 of the ICWA to reassume transfer jurisdiction under § 1911(b).” We give substantial weight to the Department of Interior’s construction of the statutes and regulations under which it operates. 2006After discussing the Mississippi Band, supra, 490 U.S. 30 , 109 S.Ct. 1597 , 104 L.Ed.2d 29 , Doe, supra, 415 F.3d 1038 , and C.R.H., supra, 29 P.3d 849 , cases cited above, the Field Solicitor concluded C.R.H. was "consistent with the longstanding position of the Office of the Solicitor that a tribe in a Public Law 280 state does not have to submit a petition under § 1918 of the ICWA to reassume transfer jurisdiction under § 1911(b)." We give substantial weight to the Department of Interior's construction of the statutes and regulations under which it operates. ( Colmenares v. Braemar Country	2	2006–2006
Doe v. Mann green ca9 · 2005 2 sentences 2006After discussing the Mississippi Band, supra, 490 U.S. 30 , Doe, supra, 415 F.3d 1038 , and C.R.H., supra, 29 P.3d 849, cases cited ante, the Field Solicitor concluded C.R.H. was “consistent with the longstanding position of the Office of the Solicitor that a tribe in a Public Law 280 state does not have to submit a petition under § 1918 of the ICWA to reassume transfer jurisdiction under § 1911(b).” We give substantial weight to the Department of Interior’s construction of the statutes and regulations under which it operates. 2006After discussing the Mississippi Band, supra, 490 U.S. 30 , Doe, supra, 415 F.3d 1038 , and C.R.H., supra, 29 P.3d 849, cases cited ante, the Field Solicitor concluded C.R.H. was “consistent with the longstanding position of the Office of the Solicitor that a tribe in a Public Law 280 state does not have to submit a petition under § 1918 of the ICWA to reassume transfer jurisdiction under § 1911(b).” We give substantial weight to the Department of Interior’s construction of the statutes and regulations under which it operates.	2	2006–2006
In Re CRH green alaska · 2001 2 sentences 2006After discussing the Mississippi Band, supra, 490 U.S. 30 , Doe, supra, 415 F.3d 1038 , and C.R.H., supra, 29 P.3d 849, cases cited ante, the Field Solicitor concluded C.R.H. was “consistent with the longstanding position of the Office of the Solicitor that a tribe in a Public Law 280 state does not have to submit a petition under § 1918 of the ICWA to reassume transfer jurisdiction under § 1911(b).” We give substantial weight to the Department of Interior’s construction of the statutes and regulations under which it operates. 2006After discussing the Mississippi Band, supra, 490 U.S. 30 , Doe, supra, 415 F.3d 1038 , and C.R.H., supra, 29 P.3d 849, cases cited ante, the Field Solicitor concluded C.R.H. was “consistent with the longstanding position of the Office of the Solicitor that a tribe in a Public Law 280 state does not have to submit a petition under § 1918 of the ICWA to reassume transfer jurisdiction under § 1911(b).” We give substantial weight to the Department of Interior’s construction of the statutes and regulations under which it operates.	2	2006–2006
Western States Petroleum Assn. v. Superior Court green cal · 1995 1 sentence 2026(Western States Petroleum Assn. v. Superior Court (1995) 9 Cal.4th 559, 570 ; Protect Niles v. City of Fremont, supra, 25 Cal.App.5th at p. 1139 .) Koi Nation has forfeited this argument by not raising it until its reply brief.	1	2026–2026
Protect Niles v. City of Fremont green calctapp5d · 2018 1 sentence 2026(Western States Petroleum Assn. v. Superior Court (1995) 9 Cal.4th 559, 570 ; Protect Niles v. City of Fremont, supra, 25 Cal.App.5th at p. 1139 .) Koi Nation has forfeited this argument by not raising it until its reply brief.	1	2026–2026
Blumberg v. Minthorne green calctapp · 2015 1 sentence 2021We conclude that this is “one of the rare cases where applying this doctrine is appropriate due to [the Tribe’s] flagrant[, repeated and continuous] violation of the [superior] court’s orders.” (Blumberg v. Minthorne (2015) 233 Cal.App.4th 1384, 1386 .) We need not reach the issue of whether Findleton has established a fraud on the court because the Tribe’s violations of the superior court’s orders are more than sufficient to justify application of the disentitlement doctrine.	1	2021–2021
California Valley Miwok Tribe v. California Gambling Control Commission green calctapp · 2014 1 sentence 2016(California Valley Miwok Tribe, supra, 231 Cal.App.4th at p. 897 .) In California Valley Miwok we affirmed the judgment in favor of the Commission.	1	2016–2016
Colmenares v. Braemar Country Club, Inc. green cal · 2003 2 sentences 2006After discussing the Mississippi Band, supra, 490 U.S. 30 , 109 S.Ct. 1597 , 104 L.Ed.2d 29 , Doe, supra, 415 F.3d 1038 , and C.R.H., supra, 29 P.3d 849 , cases cited above, the Field Solicitor concluded C.R.H. was "consistent with the longstanding position of the Office of the Solicitor that a tribe in a Public Law 280 state does not have to submit a petition under § 1918 of the ICWA to reassume transfer jurisdiction under § 1911(b)." We give substantial weight to the Department of Interior's construction of the statutes and regulations under which it operates. ( Colmenares v. Braemar Country 2006After discussing the Mississippi Band, supra, 490 U.S. 30 , 109 S.Ct. 1597 , 104 L.Ed.2d 29 , Doe, supra, 415 F.3d 1038 , and C.R.H., supra, 29 P.3d 849 , cases cited above, the Field Solicitor concluded C.R.H. was "consistent with the longstanding position of the Office of the Solicitor that a tribe in a Public Law 280 state does not have to submit a petition under § 1918 of the ICWA to reassume transfer jurisdiction under § 1911(b)." We give substantial weight to the Department of Interior's construction of the statutes and regulations under which it operates. ( Colmenares v. Braemar Country	1	2006–2006
Blatchford v. Native Village of Noatak green scotus · 1991 2 sentences 2001Cases on state sovereign immunity (Muskopf v. Corning Hospital Dist. (1961) 55 Cal.2d 211 [ 11 Cal.Rptr. 89 , 359 P.2d 457 ]) or sister state immunity (Hall v. University of Nevada (1972) 8 Cal.3d 522 [ 105 Cal.Rptr. 355 , 503 P.2d 1363 , 81 A.L.R.3d 1234 ]; Nevada v. Hall (1979) 440 U.S. 410 [ 99 S.Ct. 1182 , 59 L.Ed.2d 416 ]), cited by plaintiff, are not relevant: “In [Blatchford v. Native Village of Noatak (1991) 501 U.S. 775 [ 111 S.Ct. 2578 , 115 L.Ed.2d 686 ]], we distinguished state sovereign immunity from tribal sovereign immunity, as tribes were not at the Constitutional Convention. 2001Cases on state sovereign immunity (Muskopf v. Corning Hospital Dist. (1961) 55 Cal.2d 211 [ 11 Cal.Rptr. 89 , 359 P.2d 457 ]) or sister state immunity (Hall v. University of Nevada (1972) 8 Cal.3d 522 [ 105 Cal.Rptr. 355 , 503 P.2d 1363 , 81 A.L.R.3d 1234 ]; Nevada v. Hall (1979) 440 U.S. 410 [ 99 S.Ct. 1182 , 59 L.Ed.2d 416 ]), cited by plaintiff, are not relevant: “In [Blatchford v. Native Village of Noatak (1991) 501 U.S. 775 [ 111 S.Ct. 2578 , 115 L.Ed.2d 686 ]], we distinguished state sovereign immunity from tribal sovereign immunity, as tribes were not at the Constitutional Convention.	1	2001–2001
Nevada v. Hall red scotus · 1979 2 sentences 2001Cases on state sovereign immunity (Muskopf v. Corning Hospital Dist. (1961) 55 Cal.2d 211 [ 11 Cal.Rptr. 89 , 359 P.2d 457 ]) or sister state immunity (Hall v. University of Nevada (1972) 8 Cal.3d 522 [ 105 Cal.Rptr. 355 , 503 P.2d 1363 , 81 A.L.R.3d 1234 ]; Nevada v. Hall (1979) 440 U.S. 410 [ 99 S.Ct. 1182 , 59 L.Ed.2d 416 ]), cited by plaintiff, are not relevant: “In [Blatchford v. Native Village of Noatak (1991) 501 U.S. 775 [ 111 S.Ct. 2578 , 115 L.Ed.2d 686 ]], we distinguished state sovereign immunity from tribal sovereign immunity, as tribes were not at the Constitutional Convention. 2001Cases on state sovereign immunity (Muskopf v. Corning Hospital Dist. (1961) 55 Cal.2d 211 [ 11 Cal.Rptr. 89 , 359 P.2d 457 ]) or sister state immunity (Hall v. University of Nevada (1972) 8 Cal.3d 522 [ 105 Cal.Rptr. 355 , 503 P.2d 1363 , 81 A.L.R.3d 1234 ]; Nevada v. Hall (1979) 440 U.S. 410 [ 99 S.Ct. 1182 , 59 L.Ed.2d 416 ]), cited by plaintiff, are not relevant: “In [Blatchford v. Native Village of Noatak (1991) 501 U.S. 775 [ 111 S.Ct. 2578 , 115 L.Ed.2d 686 ]], we distinguished state sovereign immunity from tribal sovereign immunity, as tribes were not at the Constitutional Convention.	1	2001–2001
Hall v. University of Nevada green cal · 1972 2 sentences 2001Cases on state sovereign immunity (Muskopf v. Corning Hospital Dist. (1961) 55 Cal.2d 211 [ 11 Cal.Rptr. 89 , 359 P.2d 457 ]) or sister state immunity (Hall v. University of Nevada (1972) 8 Cal.3d 522 [ 105 Cal.Rptr. 355 , 503 P.2d 1363 , 81 A.L.R.3d 1234 ]; Nevada v. Hall (1979) 440 U.S. 410 [ 99 S.Ct. 1182 , 59 L.Ed.2d 416 ]), cited by plaintiff, are not relevant: “In [Blatchford v. Native Village of Noatak (1991) 501 U.S. 775 [ 111 S.Ct. 2578 , 115 L.Ed.2d 686 ]], we distinguished state sovereign immunity from tribal sovereign immunity, as tribes were not at the Constitutional Convention. 2001Cases on state sovereign immunity (Muskopf v. Corning Hospital Dist. (1961) 55 Cal.2d 211 [ 11 Cal.Rptr. 89 , 359 P.2d 457 ]) or sister state immunity (Hall v. University of Nevada (1972) 8 Cal.3d 522 [ 105 Cal.Rptr. 355 , 503 P.2d 1363 , 81 A.L.R.3d 1234 ]; Nevada v. Hall (1979) 440 U.S. 410 [ 99 S.Ct. 1182 , 59 L.Ed.2d 416 ]), cited by plaintiff, are not relevant: “In [Blatchford v. Native Village of Noatak (1991) 501 U.S. 775 [ 111 S.Ct. 2578 , 115 L.Ed.2d 686 ]], we distinguished state sovereign immunity from tribal sovereign immunity, as tribes were not at the Constitutional Convention.	1	2001–2001
Muskopf v. Corning Hospital District red cal · 1961 2 sentences 2001Cases on state sovereign immunity (Muskopf v. Corning Hospital Dist. (1961) 55 Cal.2d 211 [ 11 Cal.Rptr. 89 , 359 P.2d 457 ]) or sister state immunity (Hall v. University of Nevada (1972) 8 Cal.3d 522 [ 105 Cal.Rptr. 355 , 503 P.2d 1363 , 81 A.L.R.3d 1234 ]; Nevada v. Hall (1979) 440 U.S. 410 [ 99 S.Ct. 1182 , 59 L.Ed.2d 416 ]), cited by plaintiff, are not relevant: “In [Blatchford v. Native Village of Noatak (1991) 501 U.S. 775 [ 111 S.Ct. 2578 , 115 L.Ed.2d 686 ]], we distinguished state sovereign immunity from tribal sovereign immunity, as tribes were not at the Constitutional Convention. 2001Cases on state sovereign immunity (Muskopf v. Corning Hospital Dist. (1961) 55 Cal.2d 211 [ 11 Cal.Rptr. 89 , 359 P.2d 457 ]) or sister state immunity (Hall v. University of Nevada (1972) 8 Cal.3d 522 [ 105 Cal.Rptr. 355 , 503 P.2d 1363 , 81 A.L.R.3d 1234 ]; Nevada v. Hall (1979) 440 U.S. 410 [ 99 S.Ct. 1182 , 59 L.Ed.2d 416 ]), cited by plaintiff, are not relevant: “In [Blatchford v. Native Village of Noatak (1991) 501 U.S. 775 [ 111 S.Ct. 2578 , 115 L.Ed.2d 686 ]], we distinguished state sovereign immunity from tribal sovereign immunity, as tribes were not at the Constitutional Convention.	1	2001–2001
Matter of JM green alaska · 1986 1 sentence 2000(Alaska 1986) 718 P.2d 150 , 154-155.) Furthermore, we agree with the Tribe that the juvenile court erred in considering the letter over the Tribe’s objection when the letter was not admitted into evidence. 2.	1	2000–2000
Snow v. Quinault Indian Nation green ca9 · 1983 1 sentence 1985(Snow v. Quinault Indian Nation (9th Cir. 1983) 709 F.2d 1319, 1321 ; Chemehuevi Ind. Tribe v. Cal. St.	1	1985–1985

Statutes the citing opinions construe

USC § 25u.s.c.1901 (8) USC § 25u.s.c.1903 (5) USC § 25u.s.c.1902 (4) USC § 25u.s.c.1911 (4) USC § 25u.s.c.1914 (4) CFR § 25c.f.r.23.107 (3) USC § 25u.s.c.1912 (3) USC § 25u.s.c.1921 (3)

Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.

Where else courts name it

CA 14 (1985–2026) WA 11 (2007–2024) OK 8 (1998–2014) FL 6 (1991–2017) AZ 5 (2008–2023) CO 3 (2004–2011) IA 3 (2009–2026) SD 3 (1993–2005) AK 3 (1988–2014) MT 3 (1978–1998) RI 2 (2002–2015) WY 2 (1998–2023) LA 2 (2004–2009)

Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check