Three Affiliated Tribes of the Fort Berthold Reservation v. Wold Engineering, P.C.

North Dakota Supreme Court

Three Affiliated Tribes of the Fort Berthold Reservation v. Wold Engineering, P.C.

392 N.W.2d 87

CourtNorth Dakota Supreme Court

DecidedAugust 21, 1986

DocketCiv. 10172

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 392 N.W.2d 87 (Three Affiliated Tribes of the Fort Berthold Reservation v. Wold Engineering, P.C.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering North Dakota Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Three Affiliated Tribes of the Fort Berthold Reservation v. Wold Engineering, P.C., 392 N.W.2d 87 (N.D. 1986).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

In Three Affiliated Tribes of the Fort Berthold Reservation v. Wold Engineering, P.C., 321 N.W.2d 510 (N.D.1982), we held that the district court lacked jurisdiction to hear the action brought by Three Affiliated Tribes. In Three Affiliated Tribes of the Fort Berthold Reservation v. Wold Engineering, P.C., 467 U.S. 138, 104 S.Ct. 2267, 81 L.Ed.2d 113 (1984), the United States Supreme Court vacated our judgment and remanded for reconsideration. In Three Affiliated Tribes of the Fort Berthold Reservation v. Wold Engineering, P.C., 364 N.W.2d 98 (N.D.1985), we determined that Three Affiliated Tribes could bring their action in state court upon compliance with § 27-19-05, N.D.C.C.; that Ch. 27-19, N.D.C.C., terminated any residuary jurisdiction that may previously have existed; and vacated our previous opinion reported at Three Affiliated Tribes of the Fort Berthold Reservation v. Wold Engineering, P.C., 321 N.W.2d 510 (N.D. 1982). In Three Affiliated Tribes of the Fort Berthold Reservation v. Wold Engineering, P.C., 476 U.S. -, -, 106 S.Ct. 2305, 2314, 90 L.Ed.2d 881, 895 (1986), the United States Supreme Court reversed and remanded, stating:

“Our examination of the state, tribal, and federal interests implicated in this case, then, reinforces our conclusion that North Dakota’s disclaimer of jurisdiction over suits such as this cannot be reconciled with the congressional plan embodied in Pub.L. 280.

“The judgment of the North Dakota Supreme Court is reversed and remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.”

In light of the determination of the United States Supreme Court, we vacate our opinion reported in Three Affiliated Tribes of the Fort Berthold Reservation v. Wold Engineering, P.C., 364 N.W.2d 98 (N.D. 1985), substitute this opinion therefor, reverse the judgment of the district court and remand this case to the district court for trial.

ERICKSTAD, C.J., and VANDE WALLE, LEVINE, MESCHKE and GIERKE, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

In Three Affiliated Tribes of the Fort Berthold Reservation v. Wold Engineering, P.C., 321 N.W.2d 510 (N.D.1982), we held that the district court lacked jurisdiction to hear the action brought by Three Affiliated Tribes. In Three Affiliated Tribes of the Fort Berthold Reservation v. Wold Engineering, P.C., 467 U.S. 138, 104 S.Ct. 2267, 81 L.Ed.2d 113 (1984), the United States Supreme Court vacated our judgment and remanded for reconsideration. In Three Affiliated Tribes of the Fort Berthold Reservation v. Wold Engineering, P.C., 364 N.W.2d 98 (N.D.1985), we determined that Three Affiliated Tribes could bring their action in state court upon compliance with § 27-19-05, N.D.C.C.; that Ch. 27-19, N.D.C.C., terminated any residuary jurisdiction that may previously have existed; and vacated our previous opinion reported at Three Affiliated Tribes of the Fort Berthold Reservation v. Wold Engineering, P.C., 321 N.W.2d 510 (N.D. 1982). In Three Affiliated Tribes of the Fort Berthold Reservation v. Wold Engineering, P.C., 476 U.S. -, -, 106 S.Ct. 2305, 2314, 90 L.Ed.2d 881, 895 (1986), the United States Supreme Court reversed and remanded, stating:

“Our examination of the state, tribal, and federal interests implicated in this case, then, reinforces our conclusion that North Dakota’s disclaimer of jurisdiction over suits such as this cannot be reconciled with the congressional plan embodied in Pub.L. 280.

“The judgment of the North Dakota Supreme Court is reversed and remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.”

In light of the determination of the United States Supreme Court, we vacate our opinion reported in Three Affiliated Tribes of the Fort Berthold Reservation v. Wold Engineering, P.C., 364 N.W.2d 98 (N.D. 1985), substitute this opinion therefor, reverse the judgment of the district court and remand this case to the district court for trial.

ERICKSTAD, C.J., and VANDE WALLE, LEVINE, MESCHKE and GIERKE, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

392 N.W.2d 87, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/three-affiliated-tribes-of-the-fort-berthold-reservation-v-wold-nd-1986.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack