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.
6 Wyoming opinions name it 1 courts 1980–2026 1 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Wyoming 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 |
|---|---|---|
Fisher v. District Court of the Sixteenth Judicial District of Montanagreen2 sentences2015Court of Sixteenth Judicial Dist. of Montana, 424 U.S. 382, 386 , 96 S.Ct. 943, 946 , 47 L.Ed.2d 106 (1976) (acknowledging that Williams test generally applies where case involves a non-Indian, but nonetheless applying the analysis to reject state court jurisdiction over adoption proceeding where all parties were tribal members living on reservation). [¶20] In subsequent cases, the Supreme Court clarified that the Williams analysis requires a two-part inquiry: Congress has broad power to regulate tribal affairs under the Indian Commerce Clause, Art. 1, § 8, cl. 3. 2015Court of Sixteenth Judicial Dist. of Montana, 424 U.S. 382, 386 , 96 S.Ct. 943, 946 , 47 L.Ed.2d 106 (1976) (acknowledging that Williams test generally applies where case involves a non-Indian, but nonetheless applying the analysis to reject state court jurisdiction over adoption proceeding where all parties were tribal members living on reservation). [¶20] In subsequent cases, the Supreme Court clarified that the Williams analysis requires a two-part inquiry: Congress has broad power to regulate tribal affairs under the Indian Commerce Clause, Art. 1, § 8, cl. 3. | 1 | 2 |
Jacobson v. Cobbsgreen2 sentences2026Jacobson v. Cobbs, 2007 WY 99, ¶ 10 , 160 P.3d 654, 657 (Wyo. 2007). 2026Jacobson v. Cobbs, 2007 WY 99, ¶ 10 , 160 P.3d 654, 657 (Wyo. 2007). | 1 | 1 |
Ostrander v. Linngreen1 sentence2019That decision would necessarily address “the underlying validity of UW Regulation 2-178 and/or [the WFFA].” See also Ostrander v. Linn, 22 N.W.2d 223, 226 (Iowa 1946) (concluding identical issues were presented in criminal action and declaratory judgment action because “[t]he basis for declaratory judgment relief [] would be the basis for the defense in the criminal action”). [¶20] Mr. Williams’ declaratory judgment action is indeed an inappropriate “dress rehearsal” in that the district court issued a decision on “an issue to be tried in the main case.” Heilig, 2003 WY 27, ¶ 10 , 64 P.3d at 7 | 1 | 1 |
Valance v. VI-Doug, Inc.green2 sentences2017RB, ¶ 13, 388 P.3d at 546 -47 (citing Valance v. VI-Doug, Inc., 2002 WY 113, ¶ 8 , 50 P.3d 697, 701 (Wyo. 2002)). 2017RB, ¶ 13, 388 P.3d at 546 -47 (citing Valance v. VI-Doug, Inc., 2002 WY 113, ¶ 8 , 50 P.3d 697, 701 (Wyo. 2002)). | 1 | 1 |
Kiet Hoang Nguyen v. The State of Wyominggreen2 sentences2015Duke v. State, 2009 WY 74, ¶ 22 , 209 P.3d 563, 571 (Wyo.2009). " 'Plain error exists when: 1) the record is clear about the incident alleged as error; 2) there was a transgression of a clear and unequivocal rule of law; and 3) the party claiming the error was denied a substantial right which materially prejudiced him."" Nguyen v. State, 2013 WY 50, ¶ 10 , 299 P.3d 683, 686 (Wyo.2013) (quoting Kidwell v. State, 2012 WY 91, ¶ 10 , 279 P.3d 540, 543 (Wyo.2012)); see also W.R.Cr.P. 11(h) ("Any variance from the procedures required by this rule which does not affect substantial rights shall be dis 2015Duke v. State, 2009 WY 74, ¶ 22 , 209 P.3d 563, 571 (Wyo.2009). " 'Plain error exists when: 1) the record is clear about the incident alleged as error; 2) there was a transgression of a clear and unequivocal rule of law; and 3) the party claiming the error was denied a substantial right which materially prejudiced him."" Nguyen v. State, 2013 WY 50, ¶ 10 , 299 P.3d 683, 686 (Wyo.2013) (quoting Kidwell v. State, 2012 WY 91, ¶ 10 , 279 P.3d 540, 543 (Wyo.2012)); see also W.R.Cr.P. 11(h) ("Any variance from the procedures required by this rule which does not affect substantial rights shall be dis | 1 | 1 |
Wells v. Wellsgreen2 sentences2015Corp., 181 Wash.2d 272 , 333 P.3d 380, 382-83 (2014) (applying Williams test to allow state court jurisdiction over non-Indian plaintiff's action to enforce contract against tribal entity where contract was entered into on reservation and tribal entity, consented to state court jurisdiction under terms of contract); Gustafson v. Estate of Poitra, 2011 ND 150, ¶ 10 , 800 N.W.2d 842, 846-47 (N.D.2011) (applying Williams test to reject state court jurisdiction over property dispute brought by non-Indian against tribal member concerning tribe-owned property located partially within reservation); I 2015Ct. App. 1990) (applying Williams test to allow state court jurisdiction over action by non-Indian plaintiff against tribal member for breach of vehicle purchase contract entered off reservation but rejecting state court jurisdiction to enter garnishment order against tribal member’s wages earned on reservation); Wells v. Wells, 451 N.W.2d 402, 405-06 (S.D. 1990) (applying Williams test to uphold state court jurisdiction over wife’s divorce action against husband where both parties were tribal members but wife resided outside reservation); Powell v. Farris, 620 P.2d 525, 527-28 (Wash. 1980) (a | 1 | 1 |
Wyoming v. United Statesgreen2 sentences2015See Boller, 829 P.2d at 262-63 (looking to Supreme Court's reasoning in Brendale v. Confederated Tribes and Bands of Yakima Indian Nation, 492 U.S. 408 , 109 S.Ct. 2994 , 106 L.Ed.2d 343 (1989)). 2015See Boller, 829 P.2d at 262-63 (looking to Supreme Court's reasoning in Brendale v. Confederated Tribes and Bands of Yakima Indian Nation, 492 U.S. 408 , 109 S.Ct. 2994 , 106 L.Ed.2d 343 (1989)). | 1 | 1 |
Kidwell v. Stategreen2 sentences2015Duke v. State, 2009 WY 74, ¶ 22 , 209 P.3d 563, 571 (Wyo.2009). " 'Plain error exists when: 1) the record is clear about the incident alleged as error; 2) there was a transgression of a clear and unequivocal rule of law; and 3) the party claiming the error was denied a substantial right which materially prejudiced him."" Nguyen v. State, 2013 WY 50, ¶ 10 , 299 P.3d 683, 686 (Wyo.2013) (quoting Kidwell v. State, 2012 WY 91, ¶ 10 , 279 P.3d 540, 543 (Wyo.2012)); see also W.R.Cr.P. 11(h) ("Any variance from the procedures required by this rule which does not affect substantial rights shall be dis 2015Duke v. State, 2009 WY 74, ¶ 22 , 209 P.3d 563, 571 (Wyo.2009). " 'Plain error exists when: 1) the record is clear about the incident alleged as error; 2) there was a transgression of a clear and unequivocal rule of law; and 3) the party claiming the error was denied a substantial right which materially prejudiced him."" Nguyen v. State, 2013 WY 50, ¶ 10 , 299 P.3d 683, 686 (Wyo.2013) (quoting Kidwell v. State, 2012 WY 91, ¶ 10 , 279 P.3d 540, 543 (Wyo.2012)); see also W.R.Cr.P. 11(h) ("Any variance from the procedures required by this rule which does not affect substantial rights shall be dis | 1 | 1 |
BRENDALE v. CONFEDERATED TRIBES AND BANDS OF THE YAKIMA INDIAN NATION Et Al.green2 sentences2015See Boller, 829 P.2d at 262-63 (looking to Supreme Court's reasoning in Brendale v. Confederated Tribes and Bands of Yakima Indian Nation, 492 U.S. 408 , 109 S.Ct. 2994 , 106 L.Ed.2d 343 (1989)). 2015See Boller, 829 P.2d at 262-63 (looking to Supreme Court's reasoning in Brendale v. Confederated Tribes and Bands of Yakima Indian Nation, 492 U.S. 408 , 109 S.Ct. 2994 , 106 L.Ed.2d 343 (1989)). | 1 | 1 |
In Re Estate of Big Springgreen2 sentences2015Corp., 181 Wash.2d 272 , 333 P.3d 380, 382-83 (2014) (applying Williams test to allow state court jurisdiction over non-Indian plaintiff's action to enforce contract against tribal entity where contract was entered into on reservation and tribal entity, consented to state court jurisdiction under terms of contract); Gustafson v. Estate of Poitra, 2011 ND 150, ¶ 10 , 800 N.W.2d 842, 846-47 (N.D.2011) (applying Williams test to reject state court jurisdiction over property dispute brought by non-Indian against tribal member concerning tribe-owned property located partially within reservation); I 2015Corp., 181 Wash.2d 272 , 333 P.3d 380, 382-83 (2014) (applying Williams test to allow state court jurisdiction over non-Indian plaintiff's action to enforce contract against tribal entity where contract was entered into on reservation and tribal entity, consented to state court jurisdiction under terms of contract); Gustafson v. Estate of Poitra, 2011 ND 150, ¶ 10 , 800 N.W.2d 842, 846-47 (N.D.2011) (applying Williams test to reject state court jurisdiction over property dispute brought by non-Indian against tribal member concerning tribe-owned property located partially within reservation); I | 1 | 1 |
State Securities, Inc. v. Andersongreen2 sentences2015Corp., 181 Wash.2d 272 , 333 P.3d 380, 382-83 (2014) (applying Williams test to allow state court jurisdiction over non-Indian plaintiff's action to enforce contract against tribal entity where contract was entered into on reservation and tribal entity, consented to state court jurisdiction under terms of contract); Gustafson v. Estate of Poitra, 2011 ND 150, ¶ 10 , 800 N.W.2d 842, 846-47 (N.D.2011) (applying Williams test to reject state court jurisdiction over property dispute brought by non-Indian against tribal member concerning tribe-owned property located partially within reservation); I 2015Corp., 181 Wash.2d 272 , 333 P.3d 380, 382-83 (2014) (applying Williams test to allow state court jurisdiction over non-Indian plaintiff's action to enforce contract against tribal entity where contract was entered into on reservation and tribal entity, consented to state court jurisdiction under terms of contract); Gustafson v. Estate of Poitra, 2011 ND 150, ¶ 10 , 800 N.W.2d 842, 846-47 (N.D.2011) (applying Williams test to reject state court jurisdiction over property dispute brought by non-Indian against tribal member concerning tribe-owned property located partially within reservation); I | 1 | 1 |
State Ex Rel. Peterson v. District Court of the Ninth Judicial Districtgreen2 sentences2015See, e.g., Boller, 829 P.2d at 261-63 (applying Williams analysis to uphold state court jurisdiction over non-Indian bank's foreclosure action against tribal member); Peterson, 617 P.2d at 1061 (applying Willioms test to reject state court jurisdiction over action arising from vehicle accident occurring on reservation); Outsource Serv. 2015See, e.g., Boller, 829 P.2d at 261-63 (applying Williams analysis to uphold state court jurisdiction over non-Indian bank’s foreclosure action against tribal member); Peterson, 617 P.2d at 1061 (applying Williams test to reject state court jurisdiction over action arising from vehicle accident occurring on reservation); Outsource Serv. | 1 | 1 |
Organized Village of Kake v. Egangreen2 sentences2015See also Organized Village of Kake v. Egan, 369 U.S. [60] at 75-76, 82 S.Ct. [562] at 570-571 [ 7 L.Ed.2d 573 (1962)]. 2015See also Organized Village of Kake v. Egan, 369 U.S. [60] at 75-76, 82 S.Ct. [562] at 570-571 [ 7 L.Ed.2d 573 (1962)]. | 1 | 1 |
Gustafson v. Estate of Poitragreen2 sentences2015Corp., 181 Wash.2d 272 , 333 P.3d 380, 382-83 (2014) (applying Williams test to allow state court jurisdiction over non-Indian plaintiff's action to enforce contract against tribal entity where contract was entered into on reservation and tribal entity, consented to state court jurisdiction under terms of contract); Gustafson v. Estate of Poitra, 2011 ND 150, ¶ 10 , 800 N.W.2d 842, 846-47 (N.D.2011) (applying Williams test to reject state court jurisdiction over property dispute brought by non-Indian against tribal member concerning tribe-owned property located partially within reservation); I 2015Corp., 181 Wash.2d 272 , 333 P.3d 380, 382-83 (2014) (applying Williams test to allow state court jurisdiction over non-Indian plaintiff's action to enforce contract against tribal entity where contract was entered into on reservation and tribal entity, consented to state court jurisdiction under terms of contract); Gustafson v. Estate of Poitra, 2011 ND 150, ¶ 10 , 800 N.W.2d 842, 846-47 (N.D.2011) (applying Williams test to reject state court jurisdiction over property dispute brought by non-Indian against tribal member concerning tribe-owned property located partially within reservation); I | 1 | 1 |
Risse v. Meeksgreen2 sentences2015Corp., 181 Wash.2d 272 , 333 P.3d 380, 382-83 (2014) (applying Williams test to allow state court jurisdiction over non-Indian plaintiff's action to enforce contract against tribal entity where contract was entered into on reservation and tribal entity, consented to state court jurisdiction under terms of contract); Gustafson v. Estate of Poitra, 2011 ND 150, ¶ 10 , 800 N.W.2d 842, 846-47 (N.D.2011) (applying Williams test to reject state court jurisdiction over property dispute brought by non-Indian against tribal member concerning tribe-owned property located partially within reservation); I 2015Corp., 181 Wash.2d 272 , 333 P.3d 380, 382-83 (2014) (applying Williams test to allow state court jurisdiction over non-Indian plaintiff's action to enforce contract against tribal entity where contract was entered into on reservation and tribal entity, consented to state court jurisdiction under terms of contract); Gustafson v. Estate of Poitra, 2011 ND 150, ¶ 10 , 800 N.W.2d 842, 846-47 (N.D.2011) (applying Williams test to reject state court jurisdiction over property dispute brought by non-Indian against tribal member concerning tribe-owned property located partially within reservation); I | 1 | 1 |
Washington v. Confederated Bands & Tribes of the Yakima Indian Nationgreen2 sentences2015See Washington v. Confederated Bands and Tribes of the Yakima Indian Nation, 439 U.S. 463, 470-74 , 99 S.Ct. 740, 746-47 , 58 L.Ed.2d 740 (1979) (comparing state jurisdiction permitted under Williams analysis with that provided pursuant to Public Law 280). 2015See Washington v. Confederated Bands and Tribes of the Yakima Indian Nation, 439 U.S. 463, 470-74 , 99 S.Ct. 740, 746-47 , 58 L.Ed.2d 740 (1979) (comparing state jurisdiction permitted under Williams analysis with that provided pursuant to Public Law 280). | 1 | 1 |
Outsource Services Management, LLC v. Nooksack Business Corp.green2 sentences2015Corp., 181 Wash.2d 272 , 333 P.3d 380, 382-83 (2014) (applying Williams test to allow state court jurisdiction over non-Indian plaintiff's action to enforce contract against tribal entity where contract was entered into on reservation and tribal entity, consented to state court jurisdiction under terms of contract); Gustafson v. Estate of Poitra, 2011 ND 150, ¶ 10 , 800 N.W.2d 842, 846-47 (N.D.2011) (applying Williams test to reject state court jurisdiction over property dispute brought by non-Indian against tribal member concerning tribe-owned property located partially within reservation); I 2015Corp., 181 Wash.2d 272 , 333 P.3d 380, 382-83 (2014) (applying Williams test to allow state court jurisdiction over non-Indian plaintiff's action to enforce contract against tribal entity where contract was entered into on reservation and tribal entity, consented to state court jurisdiction under terms of contract); Gustafson v. Estate of Poitra, 2011 ND 150, ¶ 10 , 800 N.W.2d 842, 846-47 (N.D.2011) (applying Williams test to reject state court jurisdiction over property dispute brought by non-Indian against tribal member concerning tribe-owned property located partially within reservation); I | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Wheelerred2 sentences2015See United States v. Wheeler, supra, [ 435 U.S. 313 ] at 322-323, 98 S.Ct. [1079] at 1085-1086 [ 55 L.Ed.2d 303 (1978) ]. 2015See United States v. Wheeler, supra, [ 435 U.S. 313 ] at 322-323, 98 S.Ct. [1079] at 1085-1086 [ 55 L.Ed.2d 303 (1978) ]. | 1 | 1 |
Cordova v. Holwegnergreen2 sentences2015See, eg., Cordova, 971 P.2d at 537 (recognizing overlap of Williams and Montana analyses and describing them as "merely different formulations of the same underlying concept"). 2015See, eg., Cordova, 971 P.2d at 537 (recognizing overlap of Williams and Montana analyses and describing them as "merely different formulations of the same underlying concept"). | 1 | 1 |
Boller v. Key Bank of Wyominggreen2 sentences2015See, e.g., Boller, 829 P.2d at 261-63 (applying Williams analysis to uphold state court jurisdiction over non-Indian bank's foreclosure action against tribal member); Peterson, 617 P.2d at 1061 (applying Willioms test to reject state court jurisdiction over action arising from vehicle accident occurring on reservation); Outsource Serv. 2015See, e.g., Boller, 829 P.2d at 261-63 (applying Williams analysis to uphold state court jurisdiction over non-Indian bank’s foreclosure action against tribal member); Peterson, 617 P.2d at 1061 (applying Williams test to reject state court jurisdiction over action arising from vehicle accident occurring on reservation); Outsource Serv. | 1 | 1 |
Powell v. Farrisgreen2 sentences2015Corp., 181 Wash.2d 272 , 333 P.3d 380, 382-83 (2014) (applying Williams test to allow state court jurisdiction over non-Indian plaintiff's action to enforce contract against tribal entity where contract was entered into on reservation and tribal entity, consented to state court jurisdiction under terms of contract); Gustafson v. Estate of Poitra, 2011 ND 150, ¶ 10 , 800 N.W.2d 842, 846-47 (N.D.2011) (applying Williams test to reject state court jurisdiction over property dispute brought by non-Indian against tribal member concerning tribe-owned property located partially within reservation); I 2015Corp., 181 Wash.2d 272 , 333 P.3d 380, 382-83 (2014) (applying Williams test to allow state court jurisdiction over non-Indian plaintiff's action to enforce contract against tribal entity where contract was entered into on reservation and tribal entity, consented to state court jurisdiction under terms of contract); Gustafson v. Estate of Poitra, 2011 ND 150, ¶ 10 , 800 N.W.2d 842, 846-47 (N.D.2011) (applying Williams test to reject state court jurisdiction over property dispute brought by non-Indian against tribal member concerning tribe-owned property located partially within reservation); I | 1 | 1 |
Duke v. Stategreen2 sentences2015Duke v. State, 2009 WY 74, ¶ 22 , 209 P.3d 563, 571 (Wyo.2009). " 'Plain error exists when: 1) the record is clear about the incident alleged as error; 2) there was a transgression of a clear and unequivocal rule of law; and 3) the party claiming the error was denied a substantial right which materially prejudiced him."" Nguyen v. State, 2013 WY 50, ¶ 10 , 299 P.3d 683, 686 (Wyo.2013) (quoting Kidwell v. State, 2012 WY 91, ¶ 10 , 279 P.3d 540, 543 (Wyo.2012)); see also W.R.Cr.P. 11(h) ("Any variance from the procedures required by this rule which does not affect substantial rights shall be dis 2015Duke v. State, 2009 WY 74, ¶ 22 , 209 P.3d 563, 571 (Wyo.2009). " 'Plain error exists when: 1) the record is clear about the incident alleged as error; 2) there was a transgression of a clear and unequivocal rule of law; and 3) the party claiming the error was denied a substantial right which materially prejudiced him."" Nguyen v. State, 2013 WY 50, ¶ 10 , 299 P.3d 683, 686 (Wyo.2013) (quoting Kidwell v. State, 2012 WY 91, ¶ 10 , 279 P.3d 540, 543 (Wyo.2012)); see also W.R.Cr.P. 11(h) ("Any variance from the procedures required by this rule which does not affect substantial rights shall be dis | 1 | 1 |
Begay v. Robertsgreen2 sentences2015Corp., 181 Wash.2d 272 , 333 P.3d 380, 382-83 (2014) (applying Williams test to allow state court jurisdiction over non-Indian plaintiff's action to enforce contract against tribal entity where contract was entered into on reservation and tribal entity, consented to state court jurisdiction under terms of contract); Gustafson v. Estate of Poitra, 2011 ND 150, ¶ 10 , 800 N.W.2d 842, 846-47 (N.D.2011) (applying Williams test to reject state court jurisdiction over property dispute brought by non-Indian against tribal member concerning tribe-owned property located partially within reservation); I 2015Corp., 181 Wash.2d 272 , 333 P.3d 380, 382-83 (2014) (applying Williams test to allow state court jurisdiction over non-Indian plaintiff's action to enforce contract against tribal entity where contract was entered into on reservation and tribal entity, consented to state court jurisdiction under terms of contract); Gustafson v. Estate of Poitra, 2011 ND 150, ¶ 10 , 800 N.W.2d 842, 846-47 (N.D.2011) (applying Williams test to reject state court jurisdiction over property dispute brought by non-Indian against tribal member concerning tribe-owned property located partially within reservation); I | 1 | 1 |
Three Affiliated Tribes of the Fort Berthold Reservation v. Wold Engineering, P. C.green2 sentences2015White Mountain Apache Tribe v. Bracker, 448 U.S. 136, 142-43 , 100 S.Ct. 2578, 2580 , 65 L.Ed.2d 665 (1980) (footnote omitted); see also Three Affiliated Tribes of Fort Berthold Reservation v. Wold Eng'g, P.C., 467 U.S. 138, 147 , 104 S.Ct. 2267, 2274 , 81 L.Ed.2d 113 (1984) (state may exercise jurisdiction so long as it is not preempted by incompatible federal law and does not infringe on the right of reservation Indians to make their own laws and be ruled by them). [121] Although White Mowntain applied the two-part Williams analysis to a state's exercise of regulatory authority, and thus cou 2015White Mountain Apache Tribe v. Bracker, 448 U.S. 136, 142-43 , 100 S.Ct. 2578, 2580 , 65 L.Ed.2d 665 (1980) (footnote omitted); see also Three Affiliated Tribes of Fort Berthold Reservation v. Wold Eng'g, P.C., 467 U.S. 138, 147 , 104 S.Ct. 2267, 2274 , 81 L.Ed.2d 113 (1984) (state may exercise jurisdiction so long as it is not preempted by incompatible federal law and does not infringe on the right of reservation Indians to make their own laws and be ruled by them). [121] Although White Mowntain applied the two-part Williams analysis to a state's exercise of regulatory authority, and thus cou | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Wyoming. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Heilig v. Wyoming Game & Fish Commission
green
2 sentences2019That decision would necessarily address “the underlying validity of UW Regulation 2-178 and/or [the WFFA].” See also Ostrander v. Linn, 22 N.W.2d 223, 226 (Iowa 1946) (concluding identical issues were presented in criminal action and declaratory judgment action because “[t]he basis for declaratory judgment relief [] would be the basis for the defense in the criminal action”). [¶20] Mr. Williams’ declaratory judgment action is indeed an inappropriate “dress rehearsal” in that the district court issued a decision on “an issue to be tried in the main case.” Heilig, 2003 WY 27, ¶ 10 , 64 P.3d at 7 2019That decision would necessarily address “the underlying validity of UW Regulation 2-178 and/or [the WFFA].” See also Ostrander v. Linn, 22 N.W.2d 223, 226 (Iowa 1946) (concluding identical issues were presented in criminal action and declaratory judgment action because “[t]he basis for declaratory judgment relief [] would be the basis for the defense in the criminal action”). [¶20] Mr. Williams’ declaratory judgment action is indeed an inappropriate “dress rehearsal” in that the district court issued a decision on “an issue to be tried in the main case.” Heilig, 2003 WY 27, ¶ 10 , 64 P.3d at 7 | 1 | 2019–2019 |
RB, Jr., an infant, by and through his next friends, Robby & Corrina Brown v. Big Horn County School District No. 3
green
1 sentence2017RB, ¶ 13, 388 P.3d at 546 -47 (citing Valance v. VI-Doug, Inc., 2002 WY 113, ¶ 8 , 50 P.3d 697, 701 (Wyo. 2002)). | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Williams v. Lee
green
2 sentences2015Williams, 358 U.S. at 223 , 79 S.Ct. at 272 . [119] The Williams test applies primarily in matters where a non-Indian is involved or non-Indian interests are implicated. 2015Williams, 358 U.S. at 223 , 79 S.Ct. at 272 . [119] The Williams test applies primarily in matters where a non-Indian is involved or non-Indian interests are implicated. | 1 | 2015–2015 |
McClanahan v. Arizona State Tax Commission
green
2 sentences2015The Williams test was designed to resolve this conflict by providing that the State could protect its interest up to the point where tribal self-government would be affected. 7 McClanahan, 411 U.S. at 179 , 93 S.Ct. at 1266 ; but see Fisher v. Dist. 2015The Williams test was designed to resolve this conflict by providing that the State could protect its interest up to the point where tribal self-government would be affected. 7 McClanahan, 411 U.S. at 179 , 93 S.Ct. at 1266 ; but see Fisher v. Dist. | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Mescalero Apache Tribe v. Jones
green
2 sentences2015As the Supreme Court has observed, "The upshot has been the repeated statements of this Court to the effect that, even on reservations, state laws may be applied unless such application would interfere with reservation self-government or would impair a right granted or reserved by federal law." Mescalero Apache Tribe v. Jones, 411 U.S. 145, 148 , 93 S.Ct. 1267, 1270 , 36 L.Ed.2d 114 (1978) (citations omitted). [¶28] When: considering the limitations on state court jurisdiction over matters potentially implicating both state and tribal interests, it is clear that. the governing analysis has lon 2015As the Supreme Court has observed, "The upshot has been the repeated statements of this Court to the effect that, even on reservations, state laws may be applied unless such application would interfere with reservation self-government or would impair a right granted or reserved by federal law." Mescalero Apache Tribe v. Jones, 411 U.S. 145, 148 , 93 S.Ct. 1267, 1270 , 36 L.Ed.2d 114 (1978) (citations omitted). [¶28] When: considering the limitations on state court jurisdiction over matters potentially implicating both state and tribal interests, it is clear that. the governing analysis has lon | 1 | 2015–2015 |
White Mountain Apache Tribe v. Bracker
green
2 sentences2015White Mountain Apache Tribe v. Bracker, 448 U.S. 136, 142-43 , 100 S.Ct. 2578, 2580 , 65 L.Ed.2d 665 (1980) (footnote omitted); see also Three Affiliated Tribes of Fort Berthold Reservation v. Wold Eng'g, P.C., 467 U.S. 138, 147 , 104 S.Ct. 2267, 2274 , 81 L.Ed.2d 113 (1984) (state may exercise jurisdiction so long as it is not preempted by incompatible federal law and does not infringe on the right of reservation Indians to make their own laws and be ruled by them). [121] Although White Mowntain applied the two-part Williams analysis to a state's exercise of regulatory authority, and thus cou 2015White Mountain Apache Tribe v. Bracker, 448 U.S. 136, 142-43 , 100 S.Ct. 2578, 2580 , 65 L.Ed.2d 665 (1980) (footnote omitted); see also Three Affiliated Tribes of Fort Berthold Reservation v. Wold Eng'g, P.C., 467 U.S. 138, 147 , 104 S.Ct. 2267, 2274 , 81 L.Ed.2d 113 (1984) (state may exercise jurisdiction so long as it is not preempted by incompatible federal law and does not infringe on the right of reservation Indians to make their own laws and be ruled by them). [121] Although White Mowntain applied the two-part Williams analysis to a state's exercise of regulatory authority, and thus cou | 1 | 2015–2015 |
| Caterine v. United States green | 1 | 1980–1980 |
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.