Crow Tribe of Indians v. State of Montana, and Ramon Dore, Director, Montana Department of Revenue
CROW TRIBE OF INDIANS, Appellant, v. STATE OF MONTANA, and Ramon Dore, Director, Montana Department of Revenue, Appellees
Subsequent history: on reh'g en banc, Blackfeet Tribe of Indians v. State of Mont., Dir. of the Mont. Dep't of Revenue, Glacier Cnty., Mont., & Pondera Cnty., Mont., 729 F.2d 1192 (9th Cir. 1984). (read from the later opinion; check before relying)
Opinion
ORDER Before TANG, FLETCHER and ALAR-CON, Circuit Judges.
The opinion 650 F.2d 1104 (9th Cir.) filed July 13, 1981 is amended as follows:
The following footnotes are added:
4a footnotes the sentence on page 1111, left-hand column, ending on line 4 with the word “tax”:
“4a. The tax incidence on the Tribe’s royalty interest was not at issue and was not reached by the court.”
*1391 15a footnotes the sentence on page 1114, right-hand column ending on line 21 with the citation to Washington v. Confederated Tribes of Colville, 447 U.S. 134, 163 , 100 S.Ct. 2069, 2085 , 65 L.Ed.2d 10 (1980):
“15a. Appellees, in their petition for rehearing call to our attention Commonwealth Edison Co. v. Montana, 453 U.S. 609 , 101 S.Ct. 2946 , 69 L.Ed.2d 884 (1981). In that case, in the context of a challenge to the Montana coal severance tax as a burden on interstate commerce, the Court upheld the tax against the challenge that it is not fairly related to the services provided by the state. The Court stated that wide latitude is afforded the states under the Due Process Clause in imposing taxes upon particular activities. It went on to note that no direct benefit need be shown to the class or individuals taxed, and that this latitude afforded the states is not changed merely because the taxed activity has some connection to interstate commerce. Completely different considerations are implicated in the case before us. Our task is to determine the limits of state power to tax Indian tribes, Indian-related activities and Indian trust property. Different congressional acts are at issue. Congressional policy with respect to Indian tribes is involved here, not the constitutionality of the tax. We do not find Commonwealth Edison to control this case as suggested by appellees.”
The panel has voted to deny the petition for rehearing and to reject the suggestion for rehearing en banc.
The full court has been advised of the proposal to amend the opinion, and of the suggestion for en banc rehearing, and no judge has objected to the amendment or requested a vote on the suggestion for rehearing en banc. Fed.R.App. 35(b).
The petition for rehearing is denied and the suggestion for a rehearing en banc is rejected.
How later courts describe this case
Explanatory parentheticals written by citing courts — 1 in all; the most informative distinct ones are shown.
-
(“It is clear that a state tax is not invalid merely because it erodes a tribe’s revenues, even when the tax substantially impairs the tribal government’s ability to sustain itself and its programs.”)
Cited by 25 cases
View all citing references →- U.S. Supreme Court1
- U.S. Courts of Appeals19
- Federal District Courts2
- State Highest Courts2
- State Attorney General Opinions1
Relies on it most ⓘ
- Crow Tribe of Indians v. Montana
- Blackfeet Tribe of Indians v. State of Montana, Director of the Montana Department of Revenue, Glacier County, Montana, and Pondera County, Montana
- Queets Band of Indians v. The State of Washington, Muckleshoot Indian Tribe v. The State of Washington
- The Crow Tribe of Indians Forest Horn, a Member of the Crow Tribe and Chairman of Crow Tribal Council Ted Hogan, a Member of the Crow Tribe and Secretary of the Crow Tribal Council Jiggs Yellowtail, a Member of the Crow Tribe Barney Old Coyote, a Member of the Crow Tribe, United States of America v. State of Montana, the Crow Tribe of Indians, and United States of America v. The State of Montana, and Westmoreland Westmoreland, Westmoreland Resources, Inc.
- Crow Tribe of Indians v. Montana
- 96 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 5819, 96 Daily Journal D.A.R. 9504 the Crow Tribe of Indians, and United States of America v. State of Montana, Director, Ken Nordtvedt County of Big Horn Treasurer, Big Horn County, Martha Fletcher, the Crow Tribe of Indians, and United States of America v. State of Montana, Director, Ken Nordtvedt County of Big Horn Treasurer, Big Horn County, Martha Fletcher
Most recent
- Flandreau Santee Sioux Tribe v. Michael Houdyshell
- Richard Neal v. State of Arizona
- Montana v. Crow Tribe of Indians
- 96 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 5819, 96 Daily Journal D.A.R. 9504 the Crow Tribe of Indians, and United States of America v. State of Montana, Director, Ken Nordtvedt County of Big Horn Treasurer, Big Horn County, Martha Fletcher, the Crow Tribe of Indians, and United States of America v. State of Montana, Director, Ken Nordtvedt County of Big Horn Treasurer, Big Horn County, Martha Fletcher
- Crow Tribe of Indians v. Montana
- 96 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 5635, 96 Daily Journal D.A.R. 9215 Gila River Indian Community v. Paul Waddell, as Director of the Department of Revenue of the State of Arizona
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.