Turtle Talk

2 thoughts on “Onondaga Land Claims Dismissal Order”

1. Kate Fort September 24, 2010 / 10:46 am

   The relevant excerpt–maybe it should be called the “it’s not our fault you lost your land” defense, or the classic “don’t blame us, blame our ancestors” defense:

   As Sherrill and Cayuga signaled, the term “laches” serves as “convenient shorthand” for equitable principles which bar possessory claims in such circumstances. Id. at *38, 42 (rather than a true laches defense, Cayuga invoked “distinct, albeit related, equitable considerations”). It “does not focus on the elements of traditional laches but rather more generally on the length of time at issue between an historical injustice and the present day, on the disruptive nature of claims long delayed, and on the degree to which these claims upset the justifiable expectations of individuals and entities far removed from the events giving rise to the plaintiffs’ injury.” Id. at *39. Thus, in determining whether Sherrill’s formulation of “laches” may bar a plaintiff’s claims, courts do not need to find an unreasonable lack of diligence by that plaintiff under the circumstances in initiating an action. Id. at *39-42. Nor is this equitable defense limited to “possessory” claims; Oneida states that the “defense is properly applied to bar any ancient land claims that are disruptive of significant and justified societal expectations that have arisen as a result of a lapse of time during which the plaintiffs did not seek relief.” Id. at *63-64. Sherrill demonstrates as much in barring the Oneida’s action for equitable and declaratory relief as to taxes on land already owned by the Oneidas.
2. Pingback: Onondaga Land Claim Filed in 2nd Circuit | Turtle Talk

Comments are closed.