Cases

Case: 21-1880 Document: 54 Page: 1 Filed: 04/25/2024 United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ______________________ UTE INDIAN TRIBE OF THE UINTAH & OURAY INDIAN RESERVATION, Plaintiff-Appellant v. UNITED STATES, Defendant-Appellee ______________________ 2021-1880 ______________________

Case: 21-1880 Document: 54 Page: 1 Filed: 04/25/2024 United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ______________________ UTE INDIAN TRIBE OF THE UINTAH & OURAY INDIAN RESERVATION, Plaintiff-Appellant v. UNITED STATES, Defendant-Appellee ______________________ 2021-1880 ______________________

Appellate Case: 19-4178 Document: 010110659357 Date Filed: 03/18/2022 Page: 1 FILED United States Court of Appeals PUBLISH Tenth Circuit UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS March 18, 2022

935 F.Supp. 1473 (1996) UTE INDIAN TRIBE, Plaintiff, v. STATE OF UTAH, Defendant-in-Intervention, and Duchesne County, a political subdivision of the State of Utah; Uintah County, a political subdivision of the State of Utah; Roosevelt City, a municipal corporation; and Duchesne City, a municipal corporation, Defendants. No. 75-C-408J. United States District Court, D. Utah, Central Division.

SETH, Chief Judge. These appeals concern the continued existence of the Uncompahgre and Uintah Indian reservations. The Ute Tribe in Utah fashioned a Law and Order Code which purported to exercise jurisdiction over all the lands within the original Uintah reservation created by executive order in 1861 as well as the Uncompahgre Indian reservation created in 1882, both in Utah. The State of Utah and several Utah counties an

SETH, Circuit Judge, dissenting. I must respectfully dissent. These appeals concern the continued existence of the Uncompahgre and Uintah Indian reservations. The Ute Tribe in Utah fashioned a Law and Order Code which purported to exercise jurisdiction over all the lands within the original Uintah reservation created by executive order in 1861 as well as the Uncompahgre Indian reservation c

716 F.2d 1298 The UTE INDIAN TRIBE, Plaintiff/Appellant/Cross-Appellee,v.STATE OF UTAH, Defendant-Appellee,Duchesne County, a political subdivision of the State ofUtah, Uintah County, a political subdivision of the State ofUtah, Roosevelt City, a municipal corporation, and DuchesneCity, a municipal corporation, Defendants/Appellees/Cross-Appellants,United States of America, Amicus Curiae,Paradox Production Corporatio

773 F.2d 1087 The UTE INDIAN TRIBE, Plaintiff-Appellant and Cross-Appellee,v.The STATE of UTAH, Defendant-Appellee,Duchesne County, a political subdivision of the State ofUtah, Roosevelt City, a municipal corporation, DuchesneCity, a municipal corporation, and Uintah County, apolitical subdivision of the State of Utah,Defendants-Appellees and Cross-Appellants. Nos. 81-1827, 81-1901.

In the United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit ____________________ Nos. 23-2309 and 23-2467 BAD RIVER BAND OF THE LAKE SUPERIOR TRIBE OF CHIPPEWA INDIANS OF THE BAD RIVER RESERVATION, Plaintiff-Appellee, Cross-Appellant, v. ENBRIDGE ENERGY COMPANY, INC. and ENBRIDGE ENERGY, L.P., Defendants-Appellants, Cross-Appellees. __________

DECISION AND ORDER CHARLES J. SIRAGUSA, United States District Judge INTRODUCTION . This action challenges Seneca County’s ability to impose and collect ad valorem property taxes on parcels of real estate owned by the' Cayuga Indian Nation of New York. The Cayuga Nation contends both that Seneca County cannot impose the property taxes, because the subject properties are “located

In the United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit ____________________ Nos. 23-2309 and 23-2467 BAD RIVER BAND OF THE LAKE SUPERIOR TRIBE OF CHIPPEWA INDIANS OF THE BAD RIVER RESERVATION, Plaintiff-Appellee, Cross-Appellant, v. ENBRIDGE ENERGY COMPANY, INC. and ENBRIDGE ENERGY, L.P., Defendants-Appellants, Cross-Appellees. __________

This opinion is subject to revision before final publication in the Pacific Reporter 2024 UT 21 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF UTAH LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF UTAH, et al.,* Appellees & Cross-Appellants, v. UTAH STATE LEGISLATURE, et al.,* Appellants & Cross-Appellees.

SEYMOUR, Circuit Judge. This appeal arises out of the consolidation of three separate tax deficiency notices issued by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue (I.R.S.) against the estate of H.A. True, Jr., deceased, H.A. True III, personal representative, and Jean D. True (collectively, taxpayers), regarding the transfer of interests in six different family businesses subject to

Opinion for the Court filed by Circuit Judge TATEL. TATEL, Circuit Judge. In 2002, appellants, former members of the Ute Indian Tribe and their descendants, filed a multi-count complaint alleging that in the 1950s and 1960s the federal government improperly terminated their status as federally recognized Indians and, in the process of partitioning tri

FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT FMC CORPORATION, Nos. 17-35840 Plaintiff-Appellant/ 17-35865 Cross-Appellee, D.C. No. v. 4:14-cv-00489-BLW SHOSHONE-BANNOCK TRIBES, OPINION Defendant-Appellee/ Cr

MURPHY, Circuit Judge. Kenneth E. Yapp appeals the judgment of the United States District Court for the District of Colorado, granting summary judgment to Excel Corporation (“Excel”) on the basis of claim preclusion. In the summer of 1996, Yapp filed suit against his former employer, Excel, for overtime compensation due under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (“FLSA”), 29 U.S.C. §§ 201-219. Two weeks later he filed suit

In the United States Court of Federal Claims Nos. 20-44; 20-47; 20-55 (consolidated) (Filed: 23 December 2021) *************************************** ROBERT L. CAMPO, et al., * * Motion to Dismiss; RCFC 12(b)(6); Plaintiffs, * Fifth Amendment; Takings; Oysters; * Co

CORRECTED In the United States Court of Federal Claims Nos. 20-44; 20-47; 20-55 (consolidated) (Filed: 23 December 2021) *************************************** ROBERT L. CAMPO, et al., * * Motion to Dismiss; RCFC 12(b)(6); Plaintiffs, * Fifth Amendment; Takings; Oysters;

FILED United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit PUBLISH February 13, 2020 Christopher M. Wolpert UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Clerk of Court TENTH CIRCUIT A

ORDER This matter comes on for consideration of appellee’s petition for rehearing and suggestion for rehearing en banc. Upon consideration whereof, the petition for rehearing is denied by the panel that rendered the decision. The Court will, however, amend the opinion filed on December 22,1998 [164 F.3d 1261], as follows: The first sentence of the first full paragraph in column two at 164 F.3d at 1269of