Catawba Indian Tribe of South Carolina v. State of S.C.

978 F.2d 1334, 1992 U.S. App. LEXIS 23215, 1992 WL 231677
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
DecidedSeptember 22, 1992
Docket90-2446
StatusPublished
Cited by173 cases

This text of 978 F.2d 1334 (Catawba Indian Tribe of South Carolina v. State of S.C.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Catawba Indian Tribe of South Carolina v. State of S.C., 978 F.2d 1334, 1992 U.S. App. LEXIS 23215, 1992 WL 231677 (4th Cir. 1992).

Opinion

978 F.2d 1334

CATAWBA INDIAN TRIBE OF SOUTH CAROLINA, also known as the
Catawba Nation of South America, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA, Richard Riley, as Governor of the
State of South Carolina; County of Lancaster, and its
county council consisting of Francis L. Bell, as Chairman,
Fred E. Plyler, Eldridge Emory, Robert L. Mobley, Barry L.
Mobley, L. Eugene Hudson, Lindsay Pettus, City of Rock Hill,
J. Emmett Jerome, as Mayor, and its City Council consisting
of Melford A. Wilson, Elizabeth D. Rhea, Maxine Gill,
Winston Searles, A. Douglas Echols, Frank W. Berry, Sr.,
Bowater North American Corporation of America, Catawba
Timber Co., Celanese Corporation of America, Citizens and
Southern National Bank of South Carolina, Cresent Land &
Timber Corp., Duke Power Company, Flint Realty and
Construction Company, Herald Publishing Company, Home
Federal Savings and Loan Association, Rock Hill Printing &
Finishing Company, Roddey Estates, Inc., Southern Railway
Company, Springs Mills, Inc., J.P. Stevens & Company, Tega
Cay Associates, Wachovia Bank and Trust Company, Ashe Brick
Company, Church Heritage Village & Missionary Fellowship,
Nisbet Farms, Inc., C.H. Albright, Ned Albright, J.W.
Anderson, Jr., John Marshall Wilkins, II, Jesse G. Anderson,
John Wesley Anderson, David Goode Anderson, W.B. Ardrey,
Jr., Elizabeth Ardrey Grimball, John W. Ardrey, Ardrey
Farms, F.S. Barnes, Jr., W. Watson Barron, Wilson Barron,
Archie B. Carroll, Jr., Hugh William Close, James Bradley,
Francis Lay Springs, Lillian Crandal Close, Francis Allison
Close, Leroy Springs Close, Patricia Close, William Elliot
Close, Hugh William Close, Jr., Robert A. Fewell, W.J.
Harris, Annie F. Harris, T.W. Hutchinson, Hiram Hutchinson,
Jr., J.R. McAlhaney, F.M. Mack, Jr., Arnold F. Marshall,
J.E. Marshall, Jr., C.E. Reid, Jr., Will R. Simpson, John S.
Simpson, Robert F. Simpson, Thomas Brown Snodgrass, Jr.,
John M. Spratt, Marshall E. Walker, Hugh M. White, Jr., John
M. Belk, Jane Nisbet Goode, R.N. Bencher, W.O. Nisbet, III,
Pauline B. Gunter, J. Max Minson, W.A. McCorkle, Mary
McCorkle, William O. Nisbet, Eugenia Nisbet White, Mary
Nisbet Purvis, E.N. Martin, Robert M. Yoder, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 90-2446.

United States Court of Appeals,
Fourth Circuit.

Argued Feb. 4, 1992.
Decided Sept. 22, 1992.

Jay Bender, Baker, Barwick, Ravenel & Bender, Columbia, S.C., argued (Don B. Miller, Native American Rights Fund, Boulder, Colo., Robert M. Jones, Rock Hill, S.C., Richard Steele, Union, S.C., for plaintiff-appellant.

James Linwood Quarles, III, Hale & Dorr, Boston, Mass., Michael John Giese, Leatherwood, Walker, Todd & Mann, P.C., Greenville, S.C., argued. James D. St. Clair, William F. Lee, Hale & Dorr, Boston, Mass., J.D. Todd, Jr., Leatherwood, Walker, Todd & Mann, P.C., Greenville, S.C., John C. Christie, Jr., J. William Hayton, David M. Novak, Bell, Boyd & Lloyd, Washington, D.C., Dan M. Byrd, Jr., Mitchell K. Byrd, Byrd & Byrd, David A. White, Carolyn W. Rogers, Roddey, Carpenter & White, P.A., Rock Hill, S.C., T. Travis Medlock, Atty. Gen., Kenneth P. Woodington, Asst. Atty. Gen., State of S.C., Columbia, S.C., Joseph W. Grier, Jr., J. Cameron Furr, Jr., Grier & Grier, P.A., Charlotte, N.C., W.C. Spencer, Emil W. Wald, Spencer & Spencer, P.A., Rock Hill, S.C., for defendants-appellees.

Before WIDENER, HALL, MURNAGHAN, SPROUSE, NIEMEYER, and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, sitting in banc.

WIDENER, Circuit Judge:

The Catawba Indian Tribe appeals from an order of the district court granting summary judgment in favor of certain defendants as to a number of parcels of real estate on the ground that those defendants had established the adverse possession requirements of South Carolina. We affirm in part, reverse in part, and vacate and remand in part.

This litigation began when the Tribe filed a complaint and motion to certify a defendant class on October 28, 1980.1 In the complaint, the Tribe seeks to be declared the owner of approximately 144,000 acres of land that was set aside for the Tribe's benefit in the 1760 Treaty of Pine Tree Hill and the 1763 Treaty of Augusta and to recover trespass damages for the period of its dispossession. The complaint names seventy-six individuals, companies and public entities as defendants and as representatives of a putative defendant class of more than 27,000 persons with an interest in any portion of the lands in question.

In 1981, the defendants filed a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. The motion was based on the effect of the 1959 Catawba Division of Assets Act (Catawba Act), 25 U.S.C. §§ 931-938. The district court treated the motion to dismiss as a Rule 56 motion for summary judgment, granted the defendants' motion and dismissed the case. The court held that the Catawba Act terminated the special relationship that the Tribe had had with the federal government and that the termination of the special federal status of the Tribe made state law apply to it and any claim it might have. Therefore, South Carolina's adverse possession statute began to run against the Tribe's claim on July 1, 1962, the date the Tribe's constitution was revoked pursuant to the Catawba Act. Because South Carolina Code § 15-3-340, the applicable South Carolina statute of limitations, requires actions to recover title or possession to be brought within ten years, the district court held that the Tribe's claims were filed eighteen years after the statute began to run and the claims were barred. The court, while noting that South Carolina does not allow a party to obtain title by adverse possession by "tacking" his period of possession to a predecessor's period of possession (unless the land passes by inheritance), held that South Carolina's non-tacking rule "is not relevant to the defendants' assertion that the plaintiff's claims are barred by the statute of limitations."

First a panel of this court and then the court sitting en banc reversed the district court and held that the state statute of limitations does not apply to the Tribe's claim. Catawba Indian Tribe v. South Carolina, 718 F.2d 1291, 1300 (4th Cir.1983), adopted en banc, Catawba Indian Tribe v. South Carolina, 740 F.2d 305 (4th Cir.1984). Because this court held that the state statute of limitations does not apply, we did not reach the question of whether the district court had correctly applied the statute of limitations. The Supreme Court then reversed this court and held that the South Carolina statute of limitations does apply to the Tribe's claim. South Carolina v. Catawba Indian Tribe, Inc., 476 U.S. 498, 510-11, 106 S.Ct. 2039, 2046-47, 90 L.Ed.2d 490 (1986). The Court then remanded the case to this court for consideration of the district court's application of the South Carolina statute of limitations to the Tribe's claim.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Jacque Lucas v. KapStone Paper & Packaging
Court of Appeals of South Carolina, 2023
Pitter v. COMMUNITY IMAGING PARTNERS, INC.
735 F. Supp. 2d 379 (D. Maryland, 2010)
Etape v. Napolitano
664 F. Supp. 2d 498 (D. Maryland, 2009)
Hunter v. CUSTOM BUSINESS GRAPHICS
635 F. Supp. 2d 420 (E.D. Virginia, 2009)
United States Olympic Committee v. Olympic Supply, Inc.
655 F. Supp. 2d 599 (D. Maryland, 2009)
CapitalSource Finance, LLC v. Delco Oil, Inc.
608 F. Supp. 2d 655 (D. Maryland, 2009)
West American Ins. Co. v. Johns Bros., Inc.
435 F. Supp. 2d 511 (E.D. Virginia, 2006)
Butler v. VisionAIR, Inc.
385 F. Supp. 2d 549 (D. Maryland, 2005)
Zhang v. Science & Technology Corp.
382 F. Supp. 2d 761 (D. Maryland, 2005)
Atchole v. Silver Spring Imports, Inc.
379 F. Supp. 2d 797 (D. Maryland, 2005)
United States v. Coney, William
Seventh Circuit, 2005
Salami v. North Carolina Agricultural & Technical State University
394 F. Supp. 2d 696 (M.D. North Carolina, 2005)
Iraheta v. United of Omaha Life Insurance
353 F. Supp. 2d 592 (D. Maryland, 2005)
Newby v. Whitman
340 F. Supp. 2d 637 (M.D. North Carolina, 2004)
Madey v. Duke University
336 F. Supp. 2d 583 (M.D. North Carolina, 2004)
Thomas v. Potter
325 F. Supp. 2d 596 (M.D. North Carolina, 2004)
Richmond v. Indalex Inc.
308 F. Supp. 2d 648 (M.D. North Carolina, 2004)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
978 F.2d 1334, 1992 U.S. App. LEXIS 23215, 1992 WL 231677, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/catawba-indian-tribe-of-south-carolina-v-state-of-sc-ca4-1992.