TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Jess Green v. Angus A. Wilson

Jess GREEN, Appellant, v. Angus A. WILSON Et Al., Appellees

Green v. Wilson, 331 F.2d 769 (9th Cir. 1964)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · U.S. Courts of Appeals
Decided
May 12, 1964
Docket
No. 18834_1
Judges
Pope, Koelsch, Kilkenny
Citations
331 F.2d 7691964 U.S. App. LEXIS 5408

Opinion — Per Curiam

PER CURIAM.

The plaintiff, a member of the Nez Perce Indian Tribe, and president of a non-profit corporation known as the Nez Perce Indian Association, brought this suit in the district court against the nine individuals, appellees here, and defendants in the court below, alleging that said defendants without authority in law, held themselves out to be governing authorities of the said Indian Tribe and entitled to manage and control the funds thereof. The complaint alleged the invalidity of the purported constitution of defendants’ group under which defendants claim the right to represent the Tribe and alleged misuse by the defendants of tribal funds for the purpose of establishing certain enterprises on the Indian Reservation including a forestry project, a tourist enterprise, the construction of sanitary facilities and on all of which it is alleged they are losing money, and which was through mismanagement, squandering, wasting and misappropriation of the funds of the Tribe. Complaint was made also that from these moneys salaries are unlawfully paid.

The defendants moved the court to dismiss the action upon the following grounds:

“1. The Court lacks jurisdiction over the subject matter because it appears from the face of the complaint that the action does not arise under the laws, treaties or Constitution of the United States.

“2. The Nez Perce Tribe is an indispensable party to this action and cannot be joined as it is immune from suit.

“3. The United States is an indispensable party to this action and cannot be joined as it has not consented to be sued.

“4. The complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.”

The motion to dismiss was granted, the action was ordered dismissed, and the plaintiff appealed to this court.

Upon further consideration of the briefs and the oral argument made the court is of the view that the action was properly dismissed and accordingly the decision of the court below is affirmed.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1967: 11969: 11973: 11974: 11977: 11979: 119672026peak 1967 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Atkinson v. Haldane569 P.2d 151 (Alaska 1977)
  2. Means v. Wilson383 F. Supp. 378 (D.S.D. 1974)
  3. Cogo v. Central Council of the Tlingit & Haida Indians465 F. Supp. 1286 (D. Alaska 1979)
  4. Twin Cities Chippewa Tribal Council v. Minnesota Chippewa Tribe370 F.2d 529 (8th Cir. 1967)
  5. Cornelius v. Moxon301 F. Supp. 783 (D.N.D. 1969)
  6. Yazzie v. Morton59 F.R.D. 377 (D. Ariz. 1973)

Most recent

  1. Cogo v. Central Council of the Tlingit & Haida Indians465 F. Supp. 1286 (D. Alaska 1979)
  2. Atkinson v. Haldane569 P.2d 151 (Alaska 1977)
  3. Means v. Wilson383 F. Supp. 378 (D.S.D. 1974)
  4. Yazzie v. Morton59 F.R.D. 377 (D. Ariz. 1973)
  5. Cornelius v. Moxon301 F. Supp. 783 (D.N.D. 1969)
  6. Twin Cities Chippewa Tribal Council v. Minnesota Chippewa Tribe370 F.2d 529 (8th Cir. 1967)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list