Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
12 North Dakota opinions name it 1 courts 1988–2021 1 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by North Dakota 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.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Williams v. Leegreen2 sentences2021“Under this standard, we review questions of law de novo, and findings of fact are subject to the clearly erroneous standard of review.” Id. [¶11] In Williams v. Lee, the United States Supreme Court established the infringement test, which states, “Essentially, absent governing Acts of Congress, the question has always been whether the state action infringed on the right of reservation Indians to make their own laws and be ruled by them.” 358 U.S. 217, 220 (1959). 2018Our decisions in those cases were based on the infringement test from Williams v. Lee , 358 U.S. 217 , 223, 79 S.Ct. 269 , 3 L.Ed.2d 251 (1959), under which state court jurisdiction over certain claims is not allowed if that jurisdiction "would undermine the authority of the tribal courts over Reservation affairs and hence would infringe on the right of the Indians to govern themselves." We explained that under the infringement test, the United States Supreme Court has identified two categories of claims over which tribal courts have exclusive civil jurisdiction: (1) a claim by a non-Indian ag | 7 | 12 |
McKenzie County Social Services Board Ex Rel. Sax v. V.G.green2 sentences2013In Roe v. Doe , 2002 ND 136, ¶¶ 7, 12 , 649 N.W.2d 566 , we discussed a number of our previous cases holding a state court did not have subject matter jurisdiction and explained why the tribal courts had exclusive jurisdiction in those cases: We based our decisions in McKenzie County Social Services Bd. v. V.G. [, 392 N.W.2d 399 (N.D. 1986)], In re M.L.M. [, 529 N.W.2d 184 (N.D. 1995)], and McKenzie County Social Service Bd. v. C.G. [, 2001 ND 151 , 633 N.W.2d 157 ,] on the infringement test of Williams v. Lee , 358 U.S. 217 (1959). 2013In Roe v. Doe, 2002 ND 136, ¶¶ 7, 12 , 649 N.W.2d 566 , we discussed a number of our previous cases holding a state court did not have subject matter jurisdiction and explained why the tribal courts had exclusive jurisdiction in those cases: We based our decisions in McKenzie County Social Services Bd. v. V.G.[, 392 N.W.2d 399 (N.D.1986) ], In re M.L.M.[, 529 N.W.2d 184 (N.D.1995) ], and McKenzie County Social Service Bd. v. C.G.[, 2001 ND 151 , 633 N.W.2d 157 ,] on the infringement test of Williams v. Lee, 358 U.S. 217 [ 79 S.Ct. 269 , 3 L.Ed.2d 251 ] (1959). | 4 | 5 |
Roe v. Doegreen2 sentences2018As we explained in Roe , 2002 ND 136 , ¶ 19, 649 N.W.2d 566 , the infringement test does not preclude a state court from exercising jurisdiction over an action against a nonmember Indian. 2018As we explained in Roe , 2002 ND 136 , ¶ 19, 649 N.W.2d 566 , the infringement test does not preclude a state court from exercising jurisdiction over an action against a nonmember Indian. | 2 | 7 |
Byzewski v. Byzewskigreen2 sentences2009The Court applied the infringement test of Williams v. Lee, 358 U.S. 217 , 79 S.Ct. 269 , 3 L.Ed.2d 251 (1959), and, stressing that “[a]ll incidents giving rise to the custody and support issues in this action for dissolution of the second marriage occurred on the reservation,” and noting that “[t]he parties were married and lived together on the reservation with the children up until the time of separation,” concluded that “under these circumstances, the district court’s exercise of jurisdiction over child custody and support in [the state] divorce action ‘infringed on the right of reservatio 2005Byzewski, 429 N.W.2d at 398 (citations omitted). [¶ 19] While I did not sign the Byzew-ski majority but rather concurred on the basis of first in time, I have subsequently recognized Byzewski as the controlling precedent. | 1 | 2 |
Winer v. Penny Enterprises, Inc.green1 sentence2021Under the first category of the infringement test, state subject matter jurisdiction is precluded when “a non-Indian asserts a claim against an Indian for conduct occurring on that 4 Indian’s reservation.” See Winer, 2004 ND 21, ¶ 11 (internal citations omitted). | 1 | 1 |
Three Affiliated Tribes of the Fort Berthold Reservation v. Wold Engineering, P. C.green2 sentences2011Under the infringement test set forth by the United States Supreme Court in Williams v. Lee, 358 U.S. 217, 223 , 79 S.Ct. 269 , 3 L.Ed.2d 251 (1959), state court jurisdiction over certain claims is prohibited if it would “undermine the authority of the tribal courts over Reservation affairs and hence would infringe on the right of the Indians to govern themselves.” Kelly , at ¶ 11 (quoting Williams, at 223, 79 S.Ct. 269 ); see also Three Affiliated Tribes of the Fort Berthold Reserva tion v. Wold Eng’g, P.C., 467 U.S. 188 , 147-48, 104 S.Ct. 2267 , 81 L.Ed.2d 113 (1984). 2011Under the infringement test set forth by the United States Supreme Court in Williams v. Lee, 358 U.S. 217, 223 , 79 S.Ct. 269 , 3 L.Ed.2d 251 (1959), state court jurisdiction over certain claims is prohibited if it would “undermine the authority of the tribal courts over Reservation affairs and hence would infringe on the right of the Indians to govern themselves.” Kelly , at ¶ 11 (quoting Williams, at 223, 79 S.Ct. 269 ); see also Three Affiliated Tribes of the Fort Berthold Reserva tion v. Wold Eng’g, P.C., 467 U.S. 188 , 147-48, 104 S.Ct. 2267 , 81 L.Ed.2d 113 (1984). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Zamangreen1 sentence2002See id. at 461. | 1 | 1 |
Fisher v. District Court of the Sixteenth Judicial District of Montanagreen2 sentences1988See generally Fisher v. District Court, 424 U.S. 382 , 389 n. 14, 96 S.Ct. 943 , 948 n. 14, 47 L.Ed.2d 106 (1976); McKenzie County Social Services Bd. v. V.G., 392 N.W.2d 399, 402 (N.D.1986), cert. denied, 480 U.S. 930 , 107 S.Ct. 1566 , 94 L.Ed.2d 758 (1987). 1988See generally Fisher v. District Court, 424 U.S. 382 , 389 n. 14, 96 S.Ct. 943 , 948 n. 14, 47 L.Ed.2d 106 (1976); McKenzie County Social Services Bd. v. V.G., 392 N.W.2d 399, 402 (N.D.1986), cert. denied, 480 U.S. 930 , 107 S.Ct. 1566 , 94 L.Ed.2d 758 (1987). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in North Dakota. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
McKenzie County Social Service Board v. C.G.
green
2 sentences2013In Roe v. Doe, 2002 ND 136, ¶¶ 7, 12 , 649 N.W.2d 566 , we discussed a number of our previous cases holding a state court did not have subject matter jurisdiction and explained why the tribal courts had exclusive jurisdiction in those cases: We based our decisions in McKenzie County Social Services Bd. v. V.G.[, 392 N.W.2d 399 (N.D.1986) ], In re M.L.M.[, 529 N.W.2d 184 (N.D.1995) ], and McKenzie County Social Service Bd. v. C.G.[, 2001 ND 151 , 633 N.W.2d 157 ,] on the infringement test of Williams v. Lee, 358 U.S. 217 [ 79 S.Ct. 269 , 3 L.Ed.2d 251 ] (1959). 2013In Roe v. Doe, 2002 ND 136, ¶¶ 7, 12 , 649 N.W.2d 566 , we discussed a number of our previous cases holding a state court did not have subject matter jurisdiction and explained why the tribal courts had exclusive jurisdiction in those cases: We based our decisions in McKenzie County Social Services Bd. v. V.G.[, 392 N.W.2d 399 (N.D.1986) ], In re M.L.M.[, 529 N.W.2d 184 (N.D.1995) ], and McKenzie County Social Service Bd. v. C.G.[, 2001 ND 151 , 633 N.W.2d 157 ,] on the infringement test of Williams v. Lee, 358 U.S. 217 [ 79 S.Ct. 269 , 3 L.Ed.2d 251 ] (1959). | 2 | 2013–2013 |
In Interest of MLM
green
2 sentences2013In Roe v. Doe , 2002 ND 136, ¶¶ 7, 12 , 649 N.W.2d 566 , we discussed a number of our previous cases holding a state court did not have subject matter jurisdiction and explained why the tribal courts had exclusive jurisdiction in those cases: We based our decisions in McKenzie County Social Services Bd. v. V.G. [, 392 N.W.2d 399 (N.D. 1986)], In re M.L.M. [, 529 N.W.2d 184 (N.D. 1995)], and McKenzie County Social Service Bd. v. C.G. [, 2001 ND 151 , 633 N.W.2d 157 ,] on the infringement test of Williams v. Lee , 358 U.S. 217 (1959). 2013In Roe v. Doe, 2002 ND 136, ¶¶ 7, 12 , 649 N.W.2d 566 , we discussed a number of our previous cases holding a state court did not have subject matter jurisdiction and explained why the tribal courts had exclusive jurisdiction in those cases: We based our decisions in McKenzie County Social Services Bd. v. V.G.[, 392 N.W.2d 399 (N.D.1986) ], In re M.L.M.[, 529 N.W.2d 184 (N.D.1995) ], and McKenzie County Social Service Bd. v. C.G.[, 2001 ND 151 , 633 N.W.2d 157 ,] on the infringement test of Williams v. Lee, 358 U.S. 217 [ 79 S.Ct. 269 , 3 L.Ed.2d 251 ] (1959). | 2 | 2013–2013 |
Luger v. Luger
green
2 sentences2013In addition, Under the infringement test as set forth by the United States Supreme Court in Williams v. Lee, 358 U.S. 217, 223 [ 79 S.Ct. 269 , 3 L.Ed.2d 251 ] (1959), state court jurisdiction over certain claims is not allowed if it would “undermine the authority of the tribal courts over Reservation affairs and hence would infringe on the right of the Indians to govern themselves.” Rolette County Social Service Bd. v. B.E., 2005 ND 101, ¶ 6 , 697 N.W.2d 333 . [¶ 9] In Luger v. Luger, we held the state court did not lack subject matter jurisdiction in a civil dispute between two enrolled memb 2013In addition, Under the infringement test as set forth by the United States Supreme Court in Williams v. Lee, 358 U.S. 217, 223 [ 79 S.Ct. 269 , 3 L.Ed.2d 251 ] (1959), state court jurisdiction over certain claims is not allowed if it would “undermine the authority of the tribal courts over Reservation affairs and hence would infringe on the right of the Indians to govern themselves.” Rolette County Social Service Bd. v. B.E., 2005 ND 101, ¶ 6 , 697 N.W.2d 333 . [¶ 9] In Luger v. Luger, we held the state court did not lack subject matter jurisdiction in a civil dispute between two enrolled memb | 1 | 2013–2013 |
Rolette County Social Service Board v. B.E.
neutral
2 sentences2013In addition, Under the infringement test as set forth by the United States Supreme Court in Williams v. Lee, 358 U.S. 217, 223 [ 79 S.Ct. 269 , 3 L.Ed.2d 251 ] (1959), state court jurisdiction over certain claims is not allowed if it would “undermine the authority of the tribal courts over Reservation affairs and hence would infringe on the right of the Indians to govern themselves.” Rolette County Social Service Bd. v. B.E., 2005 ND 101, ¶ 6 , 697 N.W.2d 333 . [¶ 9] In Luger v. Luger, we held the state court did not lack subject matter jurisdiction in a civil dispute between two enrolled memb 2013In addition, Under the infringement test as set forth by the United States Supreme Court in Williams v. Lee, 358 U.S. 217, 223 [ 79 S.Ct. 269 , 3 L.Ed.2d 251 ] (1959), state court jurisdiction over certain claims is not allowed if it would “undermine the authority of the tribal courts over Reservation affairs and hence would infringe on the right of the Indians to govern themselves.” Rolette County Social Service Bd. v. B.E., 2005 ND 101, ¶ 6 , 697 N.W.2d 333 . [¶ 9] In Luger v. Luger, we held the state court did not lack subject matter jurisdiction in a civil dispute between two enrolled memb | 1 | 2013–2013 |
Schantz v. White Lightning
green
2 sentences2004Under the infringement test of Williams v. Lee, 358 U.S. at 223 , 79 S.Ct. 269 state courts have no jurisdiction over claims if it "would undermine the authority of the tribal courts over Reservation affairs and hence would infringe on the right of the Indians to govern themselves." [¶ 12] This Court relied upon Williams v. Lee in Schantz v. White Lightning, 231 N.W.2d 812 (N.D.1975), a case the district court found indistinguishable from the present case. 2004Under the infringement test of Williams v. Lee, 358 U.S. at 223 , 79 S.Ct. 269 state courts have no jurisdiction over claims if it “would undermine the authority of the tribal courts over Reservation affairs and hence would infringe on the right of the Indians to govern themselves.” [¶ 12] This Court relied upon Williams v. Lee in Schantz v. White Lightning, 231 N.W.2d 812 (N.D.1975), a case the district court found indistinguishable from the present case. | 1 | 2004–2004 |
Troxler Hosiery Co. v. United States
green
2 sentences1988See generally Fisher v. District Court, 424 U.S. 382 , 389 n. 14, 96 S.Ct. 943 , 948 n. 14, 47 L.Ed.2d 106 (1976); McKenzie County Social Services Bd. v. V.G., 392 N.W.2d 399, 402 (N.D.1986), cert. denied, 480 U.S. 930 , 107 S.Ct. 1566 , 94 L.Ed.2d 758 (1987). 1988See generally Fisher v. District Court, 424 U.S. 382 , 389 n. 14, 96 S.Ct. 943 , 948 n. 14, 47 L.Ed.2d 106 (1976); McKenzie County Social Services Bd. v. V.G., 392 N.W.2d 399, 402 (N.D.1986), cert. denied, 480 U.S. 930 , 107 S.Ct. 1566 , 94 L.Ed.2d 758 (1987). | 1 | 1988–1988 |
Nielsen v. Utah
green
2 sentences1988See generally Fisher v. District Court, 424 U.S. 382 , 389 n. 14, 96 S.Ct. 943 , 948 n. 14, 47 L.Ed.2d 106 (1976); McKenzie County Social Services Bd. v. V.G., 392 N.W.2d 399, 402 (N.D.1986), cert. denied, 480 U.S. 930 , 107 S.Ct. 1566 , 94 L.Ed.2d 758 (1987). 1988See generally Fisher v. District Court, 424 U.S. 382 , 389 n. 14, 96 S.Ct. 943 , 948 n. 14, 47 L.Ed.2d 106 (1976); McKenzie County Social Services Bd. v. V.G., 392 N.W.2d 399, 402 (N.D.1986), cert. denied, 480 U.S. 930 , 107 S.Ct. 1566 , 94 L.Ed.2d 758 (1987). | 1 | 1988–1988 |
Blue Cross Ass'n v. Department of Health & Human Services
green
2 sentences1988See generally Fisher v. District Court, 424 U.S. 382 , 389 n. 14, 96 S.Ct. 943 , 948 n. 14, 47 L.Ed.2d 106 (1976); McKenzie County Social Services Bd. v. V.G., 392 N.W.2d 399, 402 (N.D.1986), cert. denied, 480 U.S. 930 , 107 S.Ct. 1566 , 94 L.Ed.2d 758 (1987). 1988See generally Fisher v. District Court, 424 U.S. 382 , 389 n. 14, 96 S.Ct. 943 , 948 n. 14, 47 L.Ed.2d 106 (1976); McKenzie County Social Services Bd. v. V.G., 392 N.W.2d 399, 402 (N.D.1986), cert. denied, 480 U.S. 930 , 107 S.Ct. 1566 , 94 L.Ed.2d 758 (1987). | 1 | 1988–1988 |
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.
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.