Last updated: January 6, 2021
Legal Topics: ICWA
Legal Topics: ICWA
Legal Topics: ICWA
Legal Topics: ICWA
Legal Topics: ICWA
Legal Topics: ICWA
Legal Topics: ICWA
Legal Topics: ICWA
Legal Topics: ICWA
Legal Topics: Jurisdiction
Legal Topics: Indian Child Welfare Act
Legal Topics: Indian Child Welfare Act
Legal Topics: Cultural Property; Artifacts
Legal Topics: Indian Child Welfare Act
Legal Topics: Indian Child Welfare Act
Legal Topics: ICWA
Legal Topics: IGRA
Legal Topics: Indian Taxation
Legal Topics: Jurisdiction; Public Law 280
Legal Topics: Indian Child Welfare Act
Legal Topics: Tribal Sovereign Immunity
Legal Topics: Indian Child Welfare Act
Legal Topics: Indian Taxation; Tribal Sovereign Immunity
Legal Topics: Indian Child Welfare Act
Legal Topics: Indian Child Welfare Act
Legal Topics: Jurisdiction; Contract Breach
Legal Topics: Tribal Gaming Compacts
*Synopsis: Objector brought land use petition under Land Use Petition Act (LUPA) against county and permit applicant, arising out of issuance of conditional use permit for expansion of applicant's mining operations. The Superior Court, Yakima County, No. 18-2-01517-0, Gayle M. Harthcock, J., denied applicant's motion to dismiss. Applicant and county appealed. The Court of Appeals, 2019 WL 5566358, reversed. Objector sought review, which was granted.
*Holdings: The Supreme Court, Madsen, J., held that county's land use decision was made by written decision rather than by resolution of legislative body sitting in a quasi-judicial capacity, and thus, under LUPA, period for objector to bring land use petition challenging issuance of conditional use permit for project began three days after decision was mailed.
Reversed and
remanded.
Legal Topics: Hawaiian Home Lands Trust
Legal Topics: Jurisdiction; Personal Injury
Legal Topics: Cultural Resources; Attorney Fees
Legal Topics: Indian Child Welfare Act
Legal Topics: Indian Child Welfare Act; Tribal Membership
Legal Topics: Indian Child Welfare Act
*Synopsis: Insureds brought action against title insurer alleging breach of duty to defend when Indian tribe asserted its treaty right to harvest shellfish from insureds' tidelands. The Superior Court, Mason County No. 16-2-00686-1, Toni A Sheldon, J., granted summary judgment in favor of insurer. Insureds appealed. The Court of Appeals, 5 Wash.App.2d 68, 425 P.3d 885, reversed and remanded. Insurer petitioned for review, which was granted.
*Holdings:
The Supreme Court, en banc, Wiggins, J. held that:
1) tribe's letter to insureds asserting its right to harvest shellfish was a demand letter triggering insurer's duty to defend;
2) tribe's asserted right to harvest shellfish fell within definition of a "profit";
3) insurer had a duty to defend;
4) insurer breached its duty to defend in bad faith; and
5) insureds' request for attorney fees before resolution of insurer's affirmative defenses on remand was premature.
Judgment of Court of Appeals affirmed and remanded.
Legal Topics: Indian Child Welfare Act
*Synopsis: A child in need of aid (CINA) proceeding was brought seeking to terminate mother and father's parental rights. The Superior Court, Third Judicial District, Seward, Charles T. Huguelet, J., terminated rights in a judge-tried case. Mother and father appealed, and appeals were consolidated.
*Holdings: The Supreme Court, Winfree, J., held that:
1) As a matter of first impression, an expert witness as to a child's mental injury must be offered and affirmatively accepted as qualified expert in a judge-tried CINA proceeding;
2) Trial court's error in failing to qualify State's witness as an expert witness on child's mental injury was not harmless; and
3) Clear and convincing evidence did not support finding that conduct by or conditions created by parent resulted in mental injury to child.
Vacated and remanded.
Legal Topics: Indian Child Welfare Act
Legal Topics: Tribal Jurisdiction
*Synopsis: Mother appealed from decision of the Superior Court, Los Angeles County, No. 19LJJP00303, Pete R. Navarro, Juvenile Court Referee, finding children to be dependent, removing children from parents, and placing them in custody of Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS), with directions to place them in foster care.
*Holdings: The Court of Appeal, Rothschild, Presiding Justice, held that:
1) Because there was no pending dependency case in North Carolina when California case began, California court had subject matter jurisdiction when Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) filed its dependency petition;
2) Mother failed to show that trial court erred in failing to ensure that notice of proceedings was provided to Indian tribe in accordance with Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA);
3) Trial court did not comply with its duties of inquiry and notice under ICWA with respect to father's side of the family;
4) Social worker’s declarations and trial court’s in–court inquiries provided substantial evidence that DCFS and the court satisfied their initial duties of inquiry regarding father’s children; and
5) Mother’s statement that she might have Indian ancestry, and the similar statement by mother’s aunt, were insufficient to support a reason to believe that children were Indian children, as defined in ICWA.
Affirmed.
Legal Topics: Indian Child Welfare Act
Legal Topics: Indian Child Welfare Act
Legal Topics: Indian Education
Legal Topics: Indian Child Welfare Act
Legal Topics: Indian Child Welfare Act
Legal Topics: Indian Major Crimes Act, Jurisdiction
Legal Topics: Indian Child Welfare Act
Legal Topics: Indian Child Welfare Act
Legal Topics: Sovereign Immunity
Legal Topics: Indian Gaming
Legal Topics: Indian Child Welfare Act
Legal Topics: Indian Tax Regulations
Legal Topics: Indian Child Welfare Act
Legal Topics: Cultural Resources; Sacred Sites
*Synopsis: Department of Social and Health Services (DSHS) filed petition to terminate parental rights of father, who was enrolled member of Indian tribe, to child. Following trial, trial court ordered termination of parental rights. On father's appeal, DSHS agreed to remand case for second trial for failure to notify tribal nation of proceedings. Following new trial, the Superior Court, Chelan County, No. 17-7-70024-2, Tracy S. Brandt, J., ordered termination of parental rights. Father appealed.
*Holding: The Court of Appeals, Fearing, J., held that:
1) DSHS failed to afford parent with all ordered and necessary services,
2) Offer of parenting services concurrent with substance abuse treatment would have been futile;
3) DSHS failed to make active efforts to prevent breakup of Indian family;
4) Remand was necessary to determine whether active efforts to prevent breakup of Indian family would have been futile;
5) Sufficient evidence supported finding that continuing relationship between father and child would impede child's welfare, and
6) Sufficient evidence supported finding that father's custody of child would result in serious emotional or phyiscal harm to child.
Reversed and remanded with instructions.
*Synopsis: After quieting title to property, which was non-Indian fee land located within Indian reservation, property owner filed an eviction action against claimants. The District Court, Rolette County, Northeast Judicial District, Anthony Swain Benson, J., granted the eviction. Claimant appealed.
*Holding: The Supreme Court, Crothers, J., held that claimants failed to establsih that the district court lacked jurisdiction or has been divested of jurisdiction to adjudicate an action for eviction regarding property. Affirmed.
Legal Topics: Tribal Sovereign Immunity
*Synopsis: Defendant was convicted in the District Court, Beltrami County, John G. Melbye, J., of first-degree driving while impaired (DWI), which allegedly occurred on Indian reservation. Defendant appealed. The Court of Appeals, 929 N.W.2d 21, affirmed. Defendant petitioned for review, which was granted.
*Holding: The Supreme Court, Thissen, J., held that tribal police officer was authorized to detain and remove defendant from reservation.
Affirmed.
Legal Topics: Criminal Jurisdiction
Legal Topics: Indian Child Welfare Act
January | February | March | April | May | June | July | August | September | October | November | December
Visit the Archives for the Indian Law Bulletins to see cases from previous years.
Indian Law Bulletins are a current awareness service of the National Indian Law Library. The purpose of the Indian Law Bulletins is to provide succinct and timely information about new developments in Indian Law. See the About page for more information.
A note about links used in this document
Blue links on this page go to information available for free on the Internet. Green links go to information available on Westlaw which require a Westlaw account. The library is not affiliated with Thomson Reuters or Westlaw.
* Synopsis and holding provided under an agreement with Westlaw.
