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.
11 Arizona opinions name it 2 courts 1916–2023 1 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Arizona 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 |
|---|---|---|
Oliphant v. Suquamish Indian Tribered2 sentences1997Montana extended into the civil context the general principle expressed in Oliphant v. Suquamish Indian Tribe, 435 U.S. 191 , 98 S.Ct. 1011 , 55 L.Ed.2d 209 (1978), that the inherent sovereign authority of tribes does not include the right tp exercise jurisdiction over non-Indian defendants. 1997Montana extended into the civil context the general principle expressed in Oliphant v. Suquamish Indian Tribe, 435 U.S. 191 , 98 S.Ct. 1011 , 55 L.Ed.2d 209 (1978), that the inherent sovereign authority of tribes does not include the right tp exercise jurisdiction over non-Indian defendants. | 1 | 3 |
State v. Atteberygreen2 sentences1992Although the State of Arizona follows the McBratney-Draper-Martin holdings, State v. Attebery, 110 Ariz. 354 , 519 P.2d 53 (1974); State v. Griswold, 101 Ariz. 577 , 422 P.2d 693 , cert. denied, 388 U.S. 913 , 87 S.Ct. 2113 , 18 L.Ed.2d 1352 (1967), State v. Burrola, 137 Ariz. 181 , 669 P.2d 614 (App.1983), they are not directly on point with this case. 1992Although the State of Arizona follows the McBratney-Draper-Martin holdings, State v. Attebery, 110 Ariz. 354 , 519 P.2d 53 (1974); State v. Griswold, 101 Ariz. 577 , 422 P.2d 693 , cert. denied, 388 U.S. 913 , 87 S.Ct. 2113 , 18 L.Ed.2d 1352 (1967), State v. Burrola, 137 Ariz. 181 , 669 P.2d 614 (App.1983), they are not directly on point with this case. | 1 | 2 |
Williams v. Leegreen2 sentences1997See, e.g., Williams, 358 U.S. at 219-20 , 79 S.Ct. at 270-71 ; Fisher, 424 U.S. at 386 , 96 S.Ct. at 946 . 1997See, e.g., Williams, 358 U.S. at 219-20 , 79 S.Ct. at 270-71 ; Fisher, 424 U.S. at 386 , 96 S.Ct. at 946 . | 1 | 1 |
Brooks v. Nancegreen1 sentence1997Brooks v. Nance, 801 F.2d 1237, 1239-40 (10th Cir.1986). | 1 | 1 |
Three Affiliated Tribes of the Fort Berthold Reservation v. Wold Engineering, P. C.green2 sentences1997In the four decades following Williams , only in actions “by non-Indians against Indians or ... between Indians ... [has state court jurisdiction been found to] intrude[] impermissibly on tribal self-governance.” Three Affiliated Tribes v. Wold Eng’g (Wold I), 467 U.S. 138, 148 , 104 S.Ct. 2267, 2274 , 81 L.Ed.2d 113 (1984). 1997In the four decades following Williams , only in actions “by non-Indians against Indians or ... between Indians ... [has state court jurisdiction been found to] intrude[] impermissibly on tribal self-governance.” Three Affiliated Tribes v. Wold Eng’g (Wold I), 467 U.S. 138, 148 , 104 S.Ct. 2267, 2274 , 81 L.Ed.2d 113 (1984). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Flintgreen2 sentences1992See Flint, 157 Ariz. at 231 , 756 P.2d at 328 (Arizona does not have jurisdiction where crime involved sexual molestation of an Indian youth on reservation because the Indian tribe and federal government had a very strong interest in protecting the Indian youth); Burrola, 137 Ariz. at 182 , 669 P.2d at 615 (Arizona has jurisdiction over a weapons violation committed on a reservation by a non-Indian because there is no infringement on tribal sovereignty and because the state had significant interest in enforcing its law). 1992See Flint, 157 Ariz. at 231 , 756 P.2d at 328 (Arizona does not have jurisdiction where crime involved sexual molestation of an Indian youth on reservation because the Indian tribe and federal government had a very strong interest in protecting the Indian youth); Burrola, 137 Ariz. at 182 , 669 P.2d at 615 (Arizona has jurisdiction over a weapons violation committed on a reservation by a non-Indian because there is no infringement on tribal sovereignty and because the state had significant interest in enforcing its law). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Burrolagreen2 sentences1992Although the State of Arizona follows the McBratney-Draper-Martin holdings, State v. Attebery, 110 Ariz. 354 , 519 P.2d 53 (1974); State v. Griswold, 101 Ariz. 577 , 422 P.2d 693 , cert. denied, 388 U.S. 913 , 87 S.Ct. 2113 , 18 L.Ed.2d 1352 (1967), State v. Burrola, 137 Ariz. 181 , 669 P.2d 614 (App.1983), they are not directly on point with this case. 1992Although the State of Arizona follows the McBratney-Draper-Martin holdings, State v. Attebery, 110 Ariz. 354 , 519 P.2d 53 (1974); State v. Griswold, 101 Ariz. 577 , 422 P.2d 693 , cert. denied, 388 U.S. 913 , 87 S.Ct. 2113 , 18 L.Ed.2d 1352 (1967), State v. Burrola, 137 Ariz. 181 , 669 P.2d 614 (App.1983), they are not directly on point with this case. | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Kagamagreen2 sentences1988See United States v. Kagama, 118 U.S. 375 [ 6 S.Ct. 1109 , 30 L.Ed. 228 ] (1886). 1988See United States v. Kagama, 118 U.S. 375 [ 6 S.Ct. 1109 , 30 L.Ed. 228 ] (1886). | 1 | 1 |
Enriquez v. SUPER. CT., IN AND FOR COUNTY OF PIMAgreen2 sentences1988See also Enriquez v. Superior Court, 115 Ariz. 342 , 565 P.2d 522 (App.1977) (action brought by non-Indian plaintiff for injuries occurring in automobile accident on reservation with Indian defendant). 1988See also Enriquez v. Superior Court, 115 Ariz. 342 , 565 P.2d 522 (App.1977) (action brought by non-Indian plaintiff for injuries occurring in automobile accident on reservation with Indian defendant). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Herbergreen2 sentences1983See State v. Herber, 123 Ariz. 214 , 598 P.2d 1033 (App.1979). 1983See State v. Herber, 123 Ariz. 214 , 598 P.2d 1033 (App.1979). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Arizona. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Griswold
green
2 sentences1992Although the State of Arizona follows the McBratney-Draper-Martin holdings, State v. Attebery, 110 Ariz. 354 , 519 P.2d 53 (1974); State v. Griswold, 101 Ariz. 577 , 422 P.2d 693 , cert. denied, 388 U.S. 913 , 87 S.Ct. 2113 , 18 L.Ed.2d 1352 (1967), State v. Burrola, 137 Ariz. 181 , 669 P.2d 614 (App.1983), they are not directly on point with this case. 1992Although the State of Arizona follows the McBratney-Draper-Martin holdings, State v. Attebery, 110 Ariz. 354 , 519 P.2d 53 (1974); State v. Griswold, 101 Ariz. 577 , 422 P.2d 693 , cert. denied, 388 U.S. 913 , 87 S.Ct. 2113 , 18 L.Ed.2d 1352 (1967), State v. Burrola, 137 Ariz. 181 , 669 P.2d 614 (App.1983), they are not directly on point with this case. | 2 | 1983–1992 |
Warn v. Brooks-Scanlon, Inc.
neutral
2 sentences1992Although the State of Arizona follows the McBratney-Draper-Martin holdings, State v. Attebery, 110 Ariz. 354 , 519 P.2d 53 (1974); State v. Griswold, 101 Ariz. 577 , 422 P.2d 693 , cert. denied, 388 U.S. 913 , 87 S.Ct. 2113 , 18 L.Ed.2d 1352 (1967), State v. Burrola, 137 Ariz. 181 , 669 P.2d 614 (App.1983), they are not directly on point with this case. 1983See State v. Attebery, 110 Ariz. 354 , 519 P.2d 53 (1974); State v. Griswold, 101 Ariz. 577 , 422 P.2d 693 , cert. denied, 388 U.S. 913 , 87 S.Ct. 2113 , 18 L.Ed.2d 1352 (1967). | 2 | 1983–1992 |
Aiello v. New Jersey
green
2 sentences1992Although the State of Arizona follows the McBratney-Draper-Martin holdings, State v. Attebery, 110 Ariz. 354 , 519 P.2d 53 (1974); State v. Griswold, 101 Ariz. 577 , 422 P.2d 693 , cert. denied, 388 U.S. 913 , 87 S.Ct. 2113 , 18 L.Ed.2d 1352 (1967), State v. Burrola, 137 Ariz. 181 , 669 P.2d 614 (App.1983), they are not directly on point with this case. 1983See State v. Attebery, 110 Ariz. 354 , 519 P.2d 53 (1974); State v. Griswold, 101 Ariz. 577 , 422 P.2d 693 , cert. denied, 388 U.S. 913 , 87 S.Ct. 2113 , 18 L.Ed.2d 1352 (1967). | 2 | 1983–1992 |
Strate v. A-1 Contractors
green
1 sentence2023Opinion of the Court the infringement test in the adjudicatory setting has protected Indian defendants from nonconsensual state court jurisdiction”). ¶23 Without question, the United States Supreme Court concluded in Strate that the state-maintained highway on which the accident occurred was the equivalent of non-Indian fee land. 520 U.S. at 454 . | 1 | 2023–2023 |
Langford v. Monteith
green
1 sentence2019We agree. ¶12 A reservation is “subject to [a state’s territorial] jurisdiction, so that process may run there, however the Indians themselves may be exempt from that jurisdiction.” Langford v. Monteith, 102 U.S. 145 , 147 jurisdiction over Palmer may be in question, this issue is not before us and we decline to address it. 4 SINGER v. PALMER/MONDEX Decision of the Court (1880). | 1 | 2019–2019 |
State v. Zaman
green
2 sentences2005This is so because “[s]tate court jurisdiction over actions brought by Indians against non-Indians does not infringe upon the rights of Indians to make their own laws and to be ruled by them.” 4 Id. at 211 , 946 P.2d at 462 . ¶21 Thus, when an Indian plaintiff files suit in state court against a non-Indian defendant, there is no need to invoke the exhaustion requirement to protect the ability of the tribal court to determine in the first instance the facts and the law pertaining to whether it has jurisdiction. 2005“The Indian interests which the infringement test seeks to protect are not present when an Indian plaintiff brings an action against a non-Indian defendant in state court.” Id. at 210 , 946 P.2d at 460 . | 1 | 2005–2005 |
McClanahan v. Arizona State Tax Commission
green
1 sentence2005“The Indian interests which the infringement test seeks to protect are not present when an Indian plaintiff brings an action against a non-Indian defendant in state court.” Id. at 210 , 946 P.2d at 460 . | 1 | 2005–2005 |
Fletcher v. Peck
green
2 sentences1997Montana, 450 U.S. at 565 , 101 S.Ct. at 1258 . “[T]he Indian tribes have lost any ‘right of governing every person within their limits except themselves.’” Id. (quoting Fletcher v. Peck, 6 Cranch 87, 147 , 3 L.Ed. 162 (1810) (Johnson, J., concurring)). 1997Montana, 450 U.S. at 565 , 101 S.Ct. at 1258 . “[T]he Indian tribes have lost any ‘right of governing every person within their limits except themselves.’” Id. (quoting Fletcher v. Peck, 6 Cranch 87, 147 , 3 L.Ed. 162 (1810) (Johnson, J., concurring)). | 1 | 1997–1997 |
Fisher v. District Court of the Sixteenth Judicial District of Montana
green
2 sentences1997See, e.g., Williams, 358 U.S. at 219-20 , 79 S.Ct. at 270-71 ; Fisher, 424 U.S. at 386 , 96 S.Ct. at 946 . 1997See, e.g., Williams, 358 U.S. at 219-20 , 79 S.Ct. at 270-71 ; Fisher, 424 U.S. at 386 , 96 S.Ct. at 946 . | 1 | 1997–1997 |
Montana v. United States
green
2 sentences1997Montana, 450 U.S. at 565 , 101 S.Ct. at 1258 . “[T]he Indian tribes have lost any ‘right of governing every person within their limits except themselves.’” Id. (quoting Fletcher v. Peck, 6 Cranch 87, 147 , 3 L.Ed. 162 (1810) (Johnson, J., concurring)). 1997Montana, 450 U.S. at 565 , 101 S.Ct. at 1258 . “[T]he Indian tribes have lost any ‘right of governing every person within their limits except themselves.’” Id. (quoting Fletcher v. Peck, 6 Cranch 87, 147 , 3 L.Ed. 162 (1810) (Johnson, J., concurring)). | 1 | 1997–1997 |
New York Ex Rel. Ray v. Martin
green
2 sentences1992Ray v. Martin, 326 U.S. 496 , 66 S.Ct. 307 , 90 L.Ed. 261 (1946) (State of New York had exclusive jurisdiction over a non-Indian defendant who murdered a non-Indian victim on an Indian reservation); see also Cohen at 298. 1992Ray v. Martin, 326 U.S. 496 , 66 S.Ct. 307 , 90 L.Ed. 261 (1946) (State of New York had exclusive jurisdiction over a non-Indian defendant who murdered a non-Indian victim on an Indian reservation); see also Cohen at 298. | 1 | 1992–1992 |
Donnelly v. United States
green
2 sentences1988Further, in Williams, the court noted that federal jurisdiction was especially applicable “with respect to crimes committed by white men against the persons or property of Indian tribes while occupying reservations....” 327 U.S. at. 714, 66 S.Ct. at 780 , citing Donnelly, 228 U.S. 243 , 33 S.Ct. 449 . *232 We conclude the state has no jurisdiction in this case. 1988Further, in Williams, the court noted that federal jurisdiction was especially applicable “with respect to crimes committed by white men against the persons or property of Indian tribes while occupying reservations....” 327 U.S. at. 714, 66 S.Ct. at 780 , citing Donnelly, 228 U.S. 243 , 33 S.Ct. 449 . *232 We conclude the state has no jurisdiction in this case. | 1 | 1988–1988 |
Williams v. United States
green
2 sentences1988In this respect, this case is similar to Williams v. United States, 327 U.S. 711 , 66 S.Ct. 778 , 90 L.Ed. 962 , where the non-Indian defendant was charged with having sexual contact with an underage Indian female. 1988In this respect, this case is similar to Williams v. United States, 327 U.S. 711 , 66 S.Ct. 778 , 90 L.Ed. 962 , where the non-Indian defendant was charged with having sexual contact with an underage Indian female. | 1 | 1988–1988 |
Paiz Ex Rel. Koteen v. Hughes
green
2 sentences1981Paiz v. Hughes, 76 N.M. 562 , 417 P.2d 51 (1966). 1981Paiz v. Hughes, 76 N.M. 562 , 417 P.2d 51 (1966). | 1 | 1981–1981 |
Dodge v. Nakai
green
1 sentence1975It may be that the Tribe could prohibit entry upon the reservation by sheriff’s deputies altogether under the authority of Worchester v. Georgia, supra, but see Dodge v. Nakai, 298 F.Supp. 26 (D.Ariz. 1969), so that service upon an Indian or a non-Indian defendant would have to be made by a tribal police officer or pursuant to Arizona’s long-arm statute; but we do not view the present situation to require a plaintiff to resort to these alternatives. | 1 | 1975–1975 |
United States v. Stofello
neutral
2 sentences1916In United States v. Stofello, 8 Ariz. 461 , 76 Pac. 611 , the defendant was charged with selling intoxicating liquor to an Indian in violation of the laws of Congress. 1916In United States v. Stofello, 8 Ariz. 461 , 76 Pac. 611 , the defendant was charged with selling intoxicating liquor to an Indian in violation of the laws of Congress. | 1 | 1916–1916 |
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.