§

28 U.S.C. § 1360

Section 1360 - State civil jurisdiction in actions to which Indians are parties
Section 1360 - State civil jurisdiction in actions to which Indians are parties

2 Citing briefs

  1. Swords to Plowshares v. Kemp

    MOTION to Remand UNITED STATES OF AMERICA'S AMICUS CURIAE MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES RE MOTION FOR REMAND

    Filed July 8, 2005

    16 (1900) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Beran v. Harris, 91 C.A.2d 562 (1949) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Consolidated Milk Producers for San Francisco v. Parker, 19 Cal. 2d 815 (1942) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Cullen v. J.C. Sprigg, 83 Cal. 56 (1890) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 FEDERAL AUTHORITIES 16 U.S.C. § 460bb Appendix (as amended)) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3, 8, 9 28 U.S.C. 1360(b) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 28 U.S.C. § 1391(e) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 S. Rep. 104-202, at 26 (1996) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 U.S. Const. art. I, §8, cl.17 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 STATE STATUTES Cal.

  2. Capay Valley Coalition v. Jewell, et al

    MOTION for SUMMARY JUDGMENT

    Filed September 7, 2016

    AR004368. The Regional Director noted that since the State of California possesses criminal/prohibitory jurisdiction over Indian lands pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1162 and 28 U.S.C. § 1360 (Pub. L. No. 83-280), the State’s jurisdiction would remain unchanged by the acceptance of the land in trust.