Crow Tribe of Indians v. State of Montana, and Ramon Dore, Director, Montana Department of Revenue

Ninth Circuit

Crow Tribe of Indians v. State of Montana, and Ramon Dore, Director, Montana Department of Revenue

665 F.2d 1390, 1982 U.S. App. LEXIS 22873

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedJanuary 5, 1982

Docket79-4321

StatusPublished

Cited by31 cases

This text of 665 F.2d 1390 (Crow Tribe of Indians v. State of Montana, and Ramon Dore, Director, Montana Department of Revenue) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Crow Tribe of Indians v. State of Montana, and Ramon Dore, Director, Montana Department of Revenue, 665 F.2d 1390, 1982 U.S. App. LEXIS 22873 (9th Cir. 1982).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

Before TANG, FLETCHER and ALAR-CON, Circuit Judges.

The opinion 650 F.2d 1104 (9th Cir.) filed July 13, 1981 is amended as follows:

The following footnotes are added:

4a footnotes the sentence on page 1111, left-hand column, ending on line 4 with the word “tax”:

“4a. The tax incidence on the Tribe’s royalty interest was not at issue and was not reached by the court.”

*1391 15a footnotes the sentence on page 1114, right-hand column ending on line 21 with the citation to Washington v. Confederated Tribes of Colville, 447 U.S. 134, 163, 100 S.Ct. 2069, 2085, 65 L.Ed.2d 10 (1980):

“15a. Appellees, in their petition for rehearing call to our attention Commonwealth Edison Co. v. Montana, 453 U.S. 609, 101 S.Ct. 2946, 69 L.Ed.2d 884 (1981). In that case, in the context of a challenge to the Montana coal severance tax as a burden on interstate commerce, the Court upheld the tax against the challenge that it is not fairly related to the services provided by the state. The Court stated that wide latitude is afforded the states under the Due Process Clause in imposing taxes upon particular activities. It went on to note that no direct benefit need be shown to the class or individuals taxed, and that this latitude afforded the states is not changed merely because the taxed activity has some connection to interstate commerce. Completely different considerations are implicated in the case before us. Our task is to determine the limits of state power to tax Indian tribes, Indian-related activities and Indian trust property. Different congressional acts are at issue. Congressional policy with respect to Indian tribes is involved here, not the constitutionality of the tax. We do not find Commonwealth Edison to control this case as suggested by appellees.”

The panel has voted to deny the petition for rehearing and to reject the suggestion for rehearing en banc.

The full court has been advised of the proposal to amend the opinion, and of the suggestion for en banc rehearing, and no judge has objected to the amendment or requested a vote on the suggestion for rehearing en banc. Fed.R.App. 35(b).

The petition for rehearing is denied and the suggestion for a rehearing en banc is rejected.

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

ORDER

Before TANG, FLETCHER and ALAR-CON, Circuit Judges.

The opinion 650 F.2d 1104 (9th Cir.) filed July 13, 1981 is amended as follows:

The following footnotes are added:

4a footnotes the sentence on page 1111, left-hand column, ending on line 4 with the word “tax”:

“4a. The tax incidence on the Tribe’s royalty interest was not at issue and was not reached by the court.”

*1391 15a footnotes the sentence on page 1114, right-hand column ending on line 21 with the citation to Washington v. Confederated Tribes of Colville, 447 U.S. 134, 163, 100 S.Ct. 2069, 2085, 65 L.Ed.2d 10 (1980):

“15a. Appellees, in their petition for rehearing call to our attention Commonwealth Edison Co. v. Montana, 453 U.S. 609, 101 S.Ct. 2946, 69 L.Ed.2d 884 (1981). In that case, in the context of a challenge to the Montana coal severance tax as a burden on interstate commerce, the Court upheld the tax against the challenge that it is not fairly related to the services provided by the state. The Court stated that wide latitude is afforded the states under the Due Process Clause in imposing taxes upon particular activities. It went on to note that no direct benefit need be shown to the class or individuals taxed, and that this latitude afforded the states is not changed merely because the taxed activity has some connection to interstate commerce. Completely different considerations are implicated in the case before us. Our task is to determine the limits of state power to tax Indian tribes, Indian-related activities and Indian trust property. Different congressional acts are at issue. Congressional policy with respect to Indian tribes is involved here, not the constitutionality of the tax. We do not find Commonwealth Edison to control this case as suggested by appellees.”

The panel has voted to deny the petition for rehearing and to reject the suggestion for rehearing en banc.

The full court has been advised of the proposal to amend the opinion, and of the suggestion for en banc rehearing, and no judge has objected to the amendment or requested a vote on the suggestion for rehearing en banc. Fed.R.App. 35(b).

The petition for rehearing is denied and the suggestion for a rehearing en banc is rejected.

96 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 5819, 96 Daily Journal D.A.R. 9504 the Crow Tribe of Indians, and United States of America, Plaintiff-Intervenor v. State of Montana, Director, Ken Nordtvedt County of Big Horn Treasurer, Big Horn County, Martha Fletcher, the Crow Tribe of Indians, and United States of America, Plaintiff-Intervenor-Appellant v. State of Montana, Director, Ken Nordtvedt County of Big Horn Treasurer, Big Horn County, Martha Fletcher

92 F.3d 826 (Ninth Circuit, 1996)

96 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 5635, 96 Daily Journal D.A.R. 9215 Gila River Indian Community v. Paul Waddell, as Director of the Department of Revenue of the State of Arizona

91 F.3d 1232 (Ninth Circuit, 1996)

Gila River Indian Community v. Waddell

91 F.3d 1232 (Ninth Circuit, 1996)

96 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 317, 96 Daily Journal D.A.R. 496 Peabody Coal Company, a Delaware Corporation Southern California Edison Company, a California Corporation, Ferrell Secakuku, Chairman of the Hopi Tribal Counsel of the Hopi Tribe, Intervenor-Appellant v. The Navajo Nation, Cross-Claim-Defendant-Appellee. Peabody Coal Company, a Delaware Corporation Southern California Edison Company, a California Corporation, Ferrell Secakuku, Chairman of the Hopi Tribal Counsel of the Hopi Tribe, Intervenor-Appellee v. The Navajo Nation, Cross-Claim-Defendant-Appellee. Peabody Coal Company, a Delaware Corporation, Ferrell Secakuku, Chairman of the Hopi Tribal Counsel of the Hopi Tribe, Intervenor-Appellant v. The Navajo Nation, Cross-Claim-Defendant-Appellee

75 F.3d 457 (Ninth Circuit, 1996)

Peabody Coal Co. v. Navajo Nation

75 F.3d 457 (Ninth Circuit, 1996)

Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community v. State of Arizona Paul Waddell, Director of the Arizona Department of Revenue

50 F.3d 734 (Ninth Circuit, 1995)

Gila River Indian Community v. Paul Waddell, as Director of the Department of Revenue of the State of Arizona

967 F.2d 1404 (Ninth Circuit, 1992)

Department of Revenue v. Bird

829 P.2d 941 (Montana Supreme Court, 1992)

State v. Gohl

477 N.W.2d 205 (North Dakota Supreme Court, 1991)

Crow Tribe of Indians v. Montana

819 F.2d 895 (Ninth Circuit, 1987)

The Crow Tribe of Indians Forest Horn, a Member of the Crow Tribe and Chairman of Crow Tribal Council Ted Hogan, a Member of the Crow Tribe and Secretary of the Crow Tribal Council Jiggs Yellowtail, a Member of the Crow Tribe Barney Old Coyote, a Member of the Crow Tribe, United States of America, Plaintiff-Intervenor v. State of Montana, the Crow Tribe of Indians, and United States of America, Plaintiff-Intervenor-Appellant v. The State of Montana, and Westmoreland Westmoreland, Westmoreland Resources, Inc., Defendant-Intervenor-Appellee

819 F.2d 895 (Ninth Circuit, 1987)

Opinion No. Oag 43-86, (1986)

75 Op. Att'y Gen. 220 (Wisconsin Attorney General Reports, 1986)

Chemehuevi Indian Tribe v. California State Board of Equalization

800 F.2d 1446 (Ninth Circuit, 1986)

The Chemehuevi Indian Tribe v. California State Board Of Equalization

800 F.2d 1446 (Ninth Circuit, 1986)

Nancy J. DILLE, Et Al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. COUNCIL OF ENERGY RESOURCE TRIBES, Defendant-Appellee

801 F.2d 373 (Tenth Circuit, 1986)

Cabazon Band of Mission Indians v. County of Riverside, State of California, and Ben Clark, Morongo Band of Mission Indians v. County of Riverside, State of California, and Ben Clark

783 F.2d 900 (Ninth Circuit, 1986)

Cabazon Band of Mission Indians v. County of Riverside

783 F.2d 900 (Ninth Circuit, 1986)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

665 F.2d 1390, 1982 U.S. App. LEXIS 22873, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/crow-tribe-of-indians-v-state-of-montana-and-ramon-dore-director-ca9-1982.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack