Holcombe v. Dimmler

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Holcombe v. Dimmler

55 A.D.2d 808, 390 N.Y.S.2d 274, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15611

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedDecember 10, 1976

StatusPublished

This text of 55 A.D.2d 808 (Holcombe v. Dimmler) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Holcombe v. Dimmler, 55 A.D.2d 808, 390 N.Y.S.2d 274, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15611 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1976).

Pincite

Opinion

Order unanimously affirmed, without costs, on the memorandum at Trial Term, Gale, J. Memorandum: In affirming the trial court’s order we would only add that both Federal and New York State precedent clearly evidence a reluctance on the part of the judiciary to intervene in controversies involving internal tribal affairs of Indian Nations which may appropriately be characterized as political as opposed to judicial (McCurdy v Steele, 506 F2d 653; Groundhog v Keeler, 442 F2d 674; Matter of Patterson v Council of Seneca Nation, 245 NY 433; Matter of District Attorney of Suffolk County v Nelson, 68 Misc 2d 614). The legitimacy of the government of the Onondaga Nation or the proceedings by which its chiefs are chosen are, by their very nature, of such political sensitivity as to fall within the ambit of decisional circumscription of the court, warranting the trial court’s order of prohibition. (Appeal from order of Onondaga Supreme Court—Indian Law, art 2, § 8.) Present—Marsh, P. J., Moule, Mahoney, Goldman and Witmer, JJ.

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

Order unanimously affirmed, without costs, on the memorandum at Trial Term, Gale, J. Memorandum: In affirming the trial court’s order we would only add that both Federal and New York State precedent clearly evidence a reluctance on the part of the judiciary to intervene in controversies involving internal tribal affairs of Indian Nations which may appropriately be characterized as political as opposed to judicial (McCurdy v Steele, 506 F2d 653; Groundhog v Keeler, 442 F2d 674; Matter of Patterson v Council of Seneca Nation, 245 NY 433; Matter of District Attorney of Suffolk County v Nelson, 68 Misc 2d 614). The legitimacy of the government of the Onondaga Nation or the proceedings by which its chiefs are chosen are, by their very nature, of such political sensitivity as to fall within the ambit of decisional circumscription of the court, warranting the trial court’s order of prohibition. (Appeal from order of Onondaga Supreme Court—Indian Law, art 2, § 8.) Present—Marsh, P. J., Moule, Mahoney, Goldman and Witmer, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

55 A.D.2d 808, 390 N.Y.S.2d 274, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15611, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/holcombe-v-dimmler-nyappdiv-1976.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack