Indian defendant in South Dakota

1968Swift v. Erickson, 82 S.D. 60 , 141 N.W.2d 1 . *486 In Smith v. Temple, 82 S.D. 650 , 152 N.W.2d 547 , this court concluded that criminal and civil jurisdiction over Indians in Indian Country were coincidental and our courts have no jurisdiction over a civil cause of action arising within the closed portion of an Indian Reservation involving a tribal Indian defendant.

1968Swift v. Erickson, 82 S.D. 60 , 141 N.W.2d 1 . *486 In Smith v. Temple, 82 S.D. 650 , 152 N.W.2d 547 , this court concluded that criminal and civil jurisdiction over Indians in Indian Country were coincidental and our courts have no jurisdiction over a civil cause of action arising within the closed portion of an Indian Reservation involving a tribal Indian defendant.

2024The non-Indian defendant in Red Fox v. Hettich lived within the exterior boundaries of the Standing Rock Indian Reservation on fee land. 494 N.W.2d 638 (S.D. 1993). -29- #30046 Strate v. A-1 Contractors, 520 U.S. 438, 446 , 117 S. Ct. 1404 , 1409–10, 137 L.

2024The non-Indian defendant in Red Fox v. Hettich lived within the exterior boundaries of the Standing Rock Indian Reservation on fee land. 494 N.W.2d 638 (S.D. 1993). -29- #30046 Strate v. A-1 Contractors, 520 U.S. 438, 446 , 117 S. Ct. 1404 , 1409–10, 137 L.

2024DeCoteau v. District County Court, 420 U.S. 425 , 95 S. Ct. 1082 , 43 L.

2024DeCoteau v. District County Court, 420 U.S. 425 , 95 S. Ct. 1082 , 43 L.

2024The father in In re J.D.M.C., 2007 S.D. 97 , 739 N.W.2d 796 , lived in Sisseton on fee land, but unlike the fee land status of the non-Indian defendant in Red Fox, the Sisseton fee land was not Indian country because it did not lie within the exterior boundaries of a reservation as a result of the Supreme Court’s DeCoteau decision.

2009See Terry, 400 F.3d at 579-80 ; Becerra-Garcia, 397 F.3d at 1171 ; Ortiz-Barraza v. United States, 512 F.2d 1176, 1180 (9th Cir.1975); Keys, 390 F.Supp.2d at 884 .

1998Co. v. Brown, 86 N.M. 336 , 524 P.2d 199, 201 (N.M.App.1974) (federal statute granting United States exclusive jurisdiction over Indians on federally allotted land does not preempt state authority to serve process on Indian allotments where the process served is in a case which involves neither the allotted land nor the status of the allottees as allottees).

1998Dixon, 772 P.2d at 1113 (“Providing they have subject matter jurisdiction, if Arizona courts have power to authorize service of Arizona civil process in foreign countries, see Rule 4(e)(6), surely they have power to extend service of Arizona civil process to defendants located on Indian reservations.”); State Securities, Inc., v. Anderson, 84 N.M. 629 , 506 P.2d 786 (N.M.1973); Martin, supra (holding South Dakota deputy sheriff lacked authority to serve process on enrolled member of Oglala Sioux Indian tribe residing on the Pine Ridge Indian reservation and citing Colorado Rule of Civil Proced

1998Dixon, 772 P.2d at 1113 (“Providing they have subject matter jurisdiction, if Arizona courts have power to authorize service of Arizona civil process in foreign countries, see Rule 4(e)(6), surely they have power to extend service of Arizona civil process to defendants located on Indian reservations.”); State Securities, Inc., v. Anderson, 84 N.M. 629 , 506 P.2d 786 (N.M.1973); Martin, supra (holding South Dakota deputy sheriff lacked authority to serve process on enrolled member of Oglala Sioux Indian tribe residing on the Pine Ridge Indian reservation and citing Colorado Rule of Civil Proced

1988See, e.g., State v. Molash, 86 S.D. 558 , 199 N.W.2d 591 (1972); Smith v. Temple, 82 S.D. 650 , 152 N.W.2d 547 (1967); Hankins, supra; Petition of High Pine, 78 S.D. 121 , 99 N.W.2d 38 (1959); United States v. Erickson, 478 F.2d 684, 685, n. 1 (8th Cir. 1973).

1988See, e.g., State v. Molash, 86 S.D. 558 , 199 N.W.2d 591 (1972); Smith v. Temple, 82 S.D. 650 , 152 N.W.2d 547 (1967); Hankins, supra; Petition of High Pine, 78 S.D. 121 , 99 N.W.2d 38 (1959); United States v. Erickson, 478 F.2d 684, 685, n. 1 (8th Cir. 1973).

1982Stankey teaches us that although the decision results in checkerboard jurisdiction on the reservation and some confusion attends criminal jurisdiction in the area, [I]t cannot compare with the confusion in determining criminal jurisdiction that has existed since Seymour [v. Superintendent, 368 U.S. 351 , 82 S.Ct. 424 , 7 L.Ed.2d 346 (1962)] with Indian defendants charged with a crime within the original boundaries of a reservation claiming federal jurisdiction if convicted in state courts and claiming state jurisdiction if convicted in federal courts.

1982Stankey teaches us that although the decision results in checkerboard jurisdiction on the reservation and some confusion attends criminal jurisdiction in the area, [I]t cannot compare with the confusion in determining criminal jurisdiction that has existed since Seymour [v. Superintendent, 368 U.S. 351 , 82 S.Ct. 424 , 7 L.Ed.2d 346 (1962)] with Indian defendants charged with a crime within the original boundaries of a reservation claiming federal jurisdiction if convicted in state courts and claiming state jurisdiction if convicted in federal courts.

1982Appellant’s counsel at trial presented an affidavit in support of that motion wherein he stated “it appears that there have been numerous incidents of alleged assaults on prison guards but that the only cases that are prosecuted are those involving an Indian defendant.” The Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, in United States v. Berrios, 501 F.2d 1207 (1974), developed a two-pronged test for judging claims of selective or discriminatory prosecution.

1977Moe v. Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes of Flathead Reservation, 1976, 425 U.S. 463 , 96 S.Ct. 1634 , 48 L.Ed.2d 96 ; Seymour v. Superintent, supra. However, it cannot compare with the confusion in determining criminal jurisdiction that has existed since Seymour with Indian defendants charged with a crime within the original boundaries of a reservation claiming federal jurisdiction if convicted in state courts and claiming state jurisdiction if convicted in federal courts.

1977Moe v. Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes of Flathead Reservation, 1976, 425 U.S. 463 , 96 S.Ct. 1634 , 48 L.Ed.2d 96 ; Seymour v. Superintent, supra. However, it cannot compare with the confusion in determining criminal jurisdiction that has existed since Seymour with Indian defendants charged with a crime within the original boundaries of a reservation claiming federal jurisdiction if convicted in state courts and claiming state jurisdiction if convicted in federal courts.

1968Swift v. Erickson, 82 S.D. 60 , 141 N.W.2d 1 . *486 In Smith v. Temple, 82 S.D. 650 , 152 N.W.2d 547 , this court concluded that criminal and civil jurisdiction over Indians in Indian Country were coincidental and our courts have no jurisdiction over a civil cause of action arising within the closed portion of an Indian Reservation involving a tribal Indian defendant.

1968Swift v. Erickson, 82 S.D. 60 , 141 N.W.2d 1 . *486 In Smith v. Temple, 82 S.D. 650 , 152 N.W.2d 547 , this court concluded that criminal and civil jurisdiction over Indians in Indian Country were coincidental and our courts have no jurisdiction over a civil cause of action arising within the closed portion of an Indian Reservation involving a tribal Indian defendant.

1968The cases of Lebo v. Griffith, 42 S.D. 198 , 173 N.W. 840 and O'Neal v. Diamond A. Cattle Co., 63 S.D. 481 , 260 N.W. 836 , cited by plaintiff, are in harmony with our opinion in the present action.

1968The cases of Lebo v. Griffith, 42 S.D. 198 , 173 N.W. 840 and O'Neal v. Diamond A. Cattle Co., 63 S.D. 481 , 260 N.W. 836 , cited by plaintiff, are in harmony with our opinion in the present action.

1968The cases of Lebo v. Griffith, 42 S.D. 198 , 173 N.W. 840 and O'Neal v. Diamond A. Cattle Co., 63 S.D. 481 , 260 N.W. 836 , cited by plaintiff, are in harmony with our opinion in the present action.

1968The cases of Lebo v. Griffith, 42 S.D. 198 , 173 N.W. 840 and O'Neal v. Diamond A. Cattle Co., 63 S.D. 481 , 260 N.W. 836 , cited by plaintiff, are in harmony with our opinion in the present action.

1967Since the enactment of Public Law 280 and the decision of Williams v. Lee, supra, other courts have arrived at the same conclusion, *653 viz: Valdez v. Johnson, 68 N.M. 476 , 362 P.2d 1004 , in an action between Indians arising out of an automobile collision in Indian country; Whyte v. District Court of Montezuma County, 140 Colo. 334 , 346 P.2d 1012 , in an action for divorce; and State ex rel.

1967Since the enactment of Public Law 280 and the decision of Williams v. Lee, supra, other courts have arrived at the same conclusion, *653 viz: Valdez v. Johnson, 68 N.M. 476 , 362 P.2d 1004 , in an action between Indians arising out of an automobile collision in Indian country; Whyte v. District Court of Montezuma County, 140 Colo. 334 , 346 P.2d 1012 , in an action for divorce; and State ex rel.

1967Since the enactment of Public Law 280 and the decision of Williams v. Lee, supra, other courts have arrived at the same conclusion, *653 viz: Valdez v. Johnson, 68 N.M. 476 , 362 P.2d 1004 , in an action between Indians arising out of an automobile collision in Indian country; Whyte v. District Court of Montezuma County, 140 Colo. 334 , 346 P.2d 1012 , in an action for divorce; and State ex rel.

1967Since the enactment of Public Law 280 and the decision of Williams v. Lee, supra, other courts have arrived at the same conclusion, *653 viz: Valdez v. Johnson, 68 N.M. 476 , 362 P.2d 1004 , in an action between Indians arising out of an automobile collision in Indian country; Whyte v. District Court of Montezuma County, 140 Colo. 334 , 346 P.2d 1012 , in an action for divorce; and State ex rel.

1959In United States v. Pelican, 232 U.S. 442 , 34 S.Ct. 396, 398 , 58 L.Ed. 676 , in considering the contention of an Indian defendant that the federal district court was without jurisdiction because of the locus of his offense was not within Indian country, the court was required to consider a similar congressional act.

1959In United States v. Pelican, 232 U.S. 442 , 34 S.Ct. 396, 398 , 58 L.Ed. 676 , in considering the contention of an Indian defendant that the federal district court was without jurisdiction because of the locus of his offense was not within Indian country, the court was required to consider a similar congressional act.

1920Beecher v. Wetherby, 95 U. S. 517, 5125 , 24 L. ed. 440.

1920Beecher v. Wetherby, 95 U. S. 517, 5125 , 24 L. ed. 440.

1920Co., 253 U. S. 442 , 40 Sup. Ct. 570, 64 L. ed. 1002, an opinion handed down June 7, 1920, the court said (the italics are ours) : “It seems-plain that, at least until actually allotted in severalty -[1864,] the lands were but part of the domain held by the tribe under the ordinary Indian claim — the right of possession and occupancy — with fee in the United States.

1920Co., 253 U. S. 442 , 40 Sup. Ct. 570, 64 L. ed. 1002, an opinion handed down June 7, 1920, the court said (the italics are ours) : “It seems-plain that, at least until actually allotted in severalty -[1864,] the lands were but part of the domain held by the tribe under the ordinary Indian claim — the right of possession and occupancy — with fee in the United States.