|
''County of Oneida v. Oneida Indian Nation of New York State'', , was a landmark United States Supreme Court case concerning aboriginal title in the United States. The case, sometimes referred to as ''Oneida II'', was "the first Indian land claim case won on the basis of the Nonintercourse Act."〔, 1988, at 145.〕 The Supreme Court held that Indian tribes have a common law cause of action for possessory land claims based upon aboriginal title, that the Nonintercourse Act did not preempt that cause of action, and that the cause of action was not barred by a statute of limitations, abatement, implicit federal ratification, or nonjusticiability. Four dissenting justices would have held for the counties on the defense of ''laches'', a question which the majority did not reach, but expressed doubts about. Furthermore, the court held that, due to the Eleventh Amendment, federal courts could not exercise ancillary jurisdiction over cross-claims by counties against states. Although only two other justices agreed with the entirety of Justice Powell's majority opinion, Brennan and Marshall agreed with Parts I-IV and VI (the Oneida's claims against the counties) and Burger, White, and Rehnquist agreed with Part V (the counties claims against the state), thus forging separate majorities. The case is often referred to as ''Oneida II'' because it is the second of three times the Oneida Indian Nation reached the Supreme Court in litigating its land rights claims. It followed ''Oneida Indian Nation of New York v. County of Oneida'' (Oneida I) (1974), holding that there was federal subject-matter jurisdiction, and was followed by ''City of Sherrill v. Oneida Indian Nation of New York'' (2005), rejecting the tribe's attempt in a later lawsuit to re-assert tribal sovereignty over parcels of land re-acquired by the tribe in fee simple. ==Background== (詳細はcertiorari to the Oneida's land claim. Over a decade earlier, in ''Oneida Indian Nation of New York v. County of Oneida'' (1974), the Supreme Court had allowed the same suit to proceed by unanimously holding that there was federal subject-matter jurisdiction to hear the claim.〔Oneida Indian Nation of New York v. County of Oneida (''Oneida I''), 414 U.S. 661 (1974).〕 Since then, Justices William O. Douglas and Potter Stewart had departed, replaced by John Paul Stevens and Sandra Day O'Connor. On remand, the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York had found the counties liable to the Oneida for wrongful possession of their lands, awarded damages of $16,694, plus interest, representing the fair rental value of the land in question for the 2-year period specified in the complaint. Finally, the District Court required New York state to indemnify the counties. The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed.〔719 F.2d 525 (2d Cir. 1983).〕 The Supreme Court granted certiorari "to determine whether an Indian tribe may have a live cause of action for a violation of its possessory rights that occurred 175 years ago," ultimately agreeing with the District Court and Second Circuit that the tribe may.〔470 U.S. at 230.〕 On appeal, the counties did not dispute the District Court's findings that the Oneida held aboriginal title to the lands in question, and that the 1795 conveyances of the lands to the state violated the Nonintercourse Act.〔470 U.S. at 232–33.〕 The counties instead argued that the Nonintercourse Act preempted the Oneida's cause of action, that any cause of action was time barred, nonjusticable, and abated, and that any conveyance was ratified by the federal government.〔470 U.S. at 233.〕 抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』 ■ウィキペディアで「County of Oneida v. Oneida Indian Nation of New York State」の詳細全文を読む スポンサード リンク
|