Here are the materials in Chemehuevi Indian Tribe v. McMahon (C.D. Cal.):
reservation diminishment
Eighth Circuit Holds in Criminal Jurisdiction Matter Red Lake Reservation Not Diminished by 1905 Act
Here are the materials in United States v. Jackson:
Prior opinion in this case here.
Tenth Circuit Rejects Challenge to State Criminal Jurisdiction on Strawberry Valley Project Area of Ute Reservation
Here is the opinion in Hackford v. State of Utah.
Briefs:
Nebraska v. Parker Background Materials
Here are the materials we’ve collected on Nebraska v. Parker.
Supreme Court Merits Briefs
Merits Stage Amicus Briefs
Village of Hobart Amicus Brief
Cert Stage Briefs
State of Nebraska v Parker cert petition
Eighth Circuit Materials
District Court Materials
The 2nd amended complaint is here: Complaint
The tribal motion to dismiss is here: Motion to Dismiss
The opposition is here: Opposition to Motion to Dismiss
The reply is here: Reply Brief
The court’s stay order and opinion is here: DCT Order Denying Motion to Dismiss
DCT Order Granting Nebraska Motion to Intervene
Opposition to Motion to Intervene
Nebraska Reply in Support of Motion to Intervene
136 Village of Pender Response
Tribal Court
United States Cert Opposition Brief in Nebraska v. Parker
State of Nebraska v. Parker Cert Petition
Here:
State of Nebraska v Parker cert petition
Questions presented:
In Solem v. Bartlett, the Court articulated a three-part analysis designed to evaluate whether a surplus land act may have resulted in a diminishment of a federal Indian reservation. See 465 U.S. 463, 470-72 (1984). The Court found that the “statutory language used to open the Indian lands,” “events surrounding the passage of a surplus land Act,” and “events that occurred after the passage of a surplus land Act” are all relevant to determining whether diminishment has occurred.
The questions presented by the petition are:1. Whether ambiguous evidence concerning the first two Solem factors necessarily forecloses any possibility that diminishment could be found on a de facto basis.
2. Whether the original boundaries of the Omaha Indian Reservation were diminished following passage of the Act of August 7, 1882.
Lower court materials here.
Eighth Circuit Rules Omaha Indian Reservation Not Diminished
Here is the opinion. An excerpt:
Based upon the record evidence, the district court in this matter has done just that–accurately discerned the contemporaneous intent and understanding of the 1882 Act. The court carefully reviewed the relevant legislative history, contemporary historical context, subsequent congressional and administrative references to the reservation, and demographic trends, and did so in such a fashion that any additional analysis would only be unnecessary surplus. Ever mindful to “resolve any ambiguities in favor of the Indians,” there is nothing in this case to overcome the “presumption in favor of the continued existence” of the Omaha Indian Reservation. Yankton Sioux Tribe, 522 U.S. at 344 (quotation omitted); Yankton Sioux Tribe v. Podhradsky, 606 F.3d 985, 991 (8th Cir. 2010) (quotation omitted).
Briefs here.
Lower court materials here.
Eighth Circuit Briefs in Smith v. Parker — Formerly a Tribal Court Jurisdiction Matter, Now a Reservation Boundaries Matter
Here:
Lower court materials and links to prior iterations of this case here.
Opening Eighth Circuit Brief in Smith v. Parker — Formerly a Tribal Court Jurisdiction Matter, Now a Reservation Boundaries Matter
Federal Court Holds Omaha Reservation Not Diminished in Tribal Liquor Jurisdiction Matter
Here are the new materials in Smith v. Parker (D. Neb.):
136 Village of Pender Response
Cross-motions for summary judgment and briefs are here. Prior posts here, here, and here.
Turtle Talk 
You must be logged in to post a comment.