Jones v. Healing Healing v. Jones
Decision Date | 03 June 1963 |
Docket Number | Nos. 985 and 1050,s. 985 and 1050 |
Citation | 10 L.Ed.2d 703,373 U.S. 758,83 S.Ct. 1559 |
Parties | Paul JONES, Chairman of Navajo Tribal Council of Navajo Indian Tribe, et al. v. Dewey HEALING, Chairman of Hopi Council of Hopi Indian Tribe, et al. HEALING, Chairman of Hopi Tribal Council of Hopi Indian Tribe, et al. v. JONES, Chairman of Navajo Tribal Council of Navajo Indian Tribe, et al |
Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
Norman M. Littell and Frederick Bernays Wiener, for appellant.
John S. Boyden, Allen H. Tibbals and Bryant H. Croft, for Jones and others.
John S. Boyden, Allen H. Tibbals and Bryant H. Croft, for Healing.
Norman M. Littell and Frederick Bernays Wiener, for Jones.
The motion to substitute Raymond Nakai in the place of Paul Jones as the party appellant in No. 985 and as a party appellee in No. 1050 is granted. The motion to substitute Abbott Sekaquaptewa in the place of Dewey Healing as a party appellee in No. 985 and as a party appellant in No. 1050 is granted. The motion to affirm in No. 985 is granted and the judgment which is common to both cases is affirmed.
Mr. Justice DOUGLAS is of the opinion that probable jurisdiction should be noted and would decide the cases only after argument.
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Hamilton v. Nakai
...district. Healing v. Jones, D.Ariz., 1962, 210 F.Supp. 125. The Supreme Court affirmed this judgment. Jones v. Healing, 1963, 373 U.S. 758, 83 S.Ct. 1559, 10 L.Ed.2d 703. On March 13, 1970, the Hopi Indian Tribe petitioned the District Court for an order of compliance or writ of assistance ......
-
Clinton v. Babbitt
...thereon." Exec. Order of Dec. 16, 1882, reprinted in Healing v. Jones, 210 F.Supp. 125, 129 n. 1 (D.Ariz.1962), aff'd, 373 U.S. 758, 83 S.Ct. 1559, 10 L.Ed.2d 703 (1963). Over the next several years, the Hopi Tribe enjoyed the right to use and occupy the 2.5 million acre reservation, but th......
-
Menominee Indian Tribe of Wisconsin v. Thompson
...more, has no connotation of rightful possession. A trespasser may have actual use and occupancy of land."), aff'd, 373 U.S. 758, 83 S.Ct. 1559, 10 L.Ed.2d 703 (1963). However, it is too early in the litigation to assess the nature and weight of the evidence of continued use that plaintiff w......
- United States v. Pearson