Additional state jurisdiction with consent of tribe governing body.
Additional state jurisdiction in criminal and civil causes of action may be extended to particular reservations or Indian country with the consent of the governing body of the tribe occupying the Indian country effected by the assumption of such additional jurisdiction. This may be achieved by negotiation with the tribe or by unilateral action by the tribe. In every case the extent of such additional jurisdiction shall be determined by a resolution of the tribal governing body and become effective upon the tribe’s transmittal of the resolution to the attorney general of the state of Idaho. Such resolution may effectively accept jurisdiction as to any particular field of criminal or civil jurisdiction. All state jurisdiction extended by virtue of this act shall be concurrent (and not exclusive) with jurisdiction in the same matters existing in the tribes or the federal government.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
11
cases, 1968–2005 · leading case:
State v. Major, 725 P.2d 115 (Idaho 1986).
State v. Major, 725 P.2d 115 (Idaho 1986).
· cites it 20× “In I.C. § 67-5102, the state assumed additional jurisdiction with the consent of the concerned tribe's governing body: 67-5102.”
State v. Mathews, 986 P.2d 323 (Idaho 1999).
· cites it 12× “In 1963, the Idaho legislature passed I.C. § 67-5102, which required tribal consent prior to additional assumption of state jurisdiction over activities occurring within Indian country.”
Odenwalt v. Zaring, 624 P.2d 383 (Idaho 1980).
· cites it 4× “I The association, in support of its appeal from the order denying its motion for summary judgment, argues that Congress has plenary power over matters arising in Indian territory and that the courts of the State of Idaho lack subject matter jurisdiction here (1) because…”
State v. Snyder, 807 P.2d 55 (Idaho 1991).
· cites it 8× “280 to require formal tribal consent to the assumption of any additional state jurisdiction over Indians.”
Snowbird Const. Co., Inc. v. United States, 666 F. Supp. 1437 (D. Idaho 1987).
· cites it 4× “Idaho Code § 67-5102 provides: Additional state jurisdiction in criminal and civil causes of action may be extended to particular reservations or Indian country with the consent of the governing body of the tribe occupying the Indi *1444 an country effected [affected] by the…”
State v. Ambro, 123 P.3d 710 (Idaho Ct. App. 2005).
· cites it 2× “In enacting Section 67-5101, the Idaho legislature also passed Section 67-5102, which requires tribal consent prior to additional assumption of state jurisdiction over activities occurring within Indian country.”
Nez Perce Tribe v. Cenarrusa, 867 P.2d 911 (Idaho 1993).
· cites it 4× “§ 67-5101 does not refer to gambling laws, nor is there any evidence that the governing bodies of any Indian tribe in the state has consented to the state's jurisdiction over gambling on the reservations. The very purpose of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act ( 25 U.”
Boyer v. Shoshone-Bannock Indian Tribes, 441 P.2d 167 (Idaho 1968).
· cites it 4× “§ 67-5101, I.C. § 67-5102 provides: “Additional state jurisdiction in criminal and civil causes of action may be extended to particular reservations or Indian country with the consent of the governing body of the tribe occupying the Indian country effected [affected] by the…”
Robles v. Shoshone-Bannock Tribes, 876 P.2d 134 (Idaho 1994).
· cites it 8× “Under I.C. § 67-5102, Idaho state courts can assume additional jurisdiction over other Indian affairs with the consent of individual tribal governing bodies.”
Cnty. of Lewis v. Allen, 163 F.3d 509 (9th Cir. 1998).
“Idaho Code § 67-5102 . Two years later, in 1965, the Nez Perce Tribe and the State of Idaho entered into the compact at issue, extending state criminal jurisdiction to certain minor crimes.”
State v. Ambro, 123 P.3d 710 (Idaho Ct. App. 2005).
· cites it 2× “In enacting Section 67-5101, the Idaho legislature also passed Section 67-5102, which requires tribal consent prior to additional assumption of state jurisdiction over activities occurring within Indian country.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.