Barta v. Oglala Sioux Tribe of Pine Ridge Reservation
Decision Date | 15 October 1958 |
Docket Number | No. 15967-15971.,15967-15971. |
Parties | Albert J. BARTA, John E. Barta and Charles K. Failing, Appellants, v. OGLALA SIOUX TRIBE OF PINE RIDGE RESERVATION OF SOUTH DAKOTA, and James Iron Cloud, Appellees. Claire COOMES and A. R. Davies, Appellants, v. OGLALA SIOUX TRIBE OF PINE RIDGE RESERVATION OF SOUTH DAKOTA, and James Iron Cloud, Appellees. John GLOVER and Merton Glover, Appellants, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee. Jack LEWIS and Marvin Spracklin, Appellants, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee. Cyrus PORCH and William Porch, Appellants, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit |
John C. Farrar, Rapid City, S. D. (Gunderson, Farrar & Carrell, Rapid City, S. D., on the brief), for appellants.
Richard Schifter, Washington, D. C. (Harold R. Hanley, Rapid City, S. D., Daniel M. Singer, Strasser, Spiegelberg, Fried & Frank, Washington, D. C., and Hanley, Costello & Porter, Rapid City, S. D., on the brief), for appellees Oglala Sioux Tribe of Pine Ridge Reservation of South Dakota et al.
Robert S. Griswold, Jr., Attorney, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C. (Perry W. Morton, Asst. Atty. Gen., Clinton G. Richards, U. S. Atty., Lyle E. Cheever, Asst. U. S. Atty., Sioux Falls, S. D., and S. Billingsley Hill, Attorney, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C., on the brief), for appellee United States.
Before GARDNER, Chief Judge, and VOGEL and MATTHES, Circuit Judges.
Appellants at all times here material were lessees of certain tribal trust lands in the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation located within the geographical boundaries of the State of South Dakota. The Pine Ridge Indian Reservation is the home of the Oglala Sioux Tribe of Indians. The Oglala Sioux Tribal Council by resolution levied a license tax on non-members of the tribe leasing trust lands on the reservation, of three cents per acre per annum for grazing land and fifteen cents per acre per annum for farm land. Appellants were lessees of tribal trust lands. Having failed and refused to pay the tax so levied during the period commencing November 1, 1953, these five actions were brought to recover the taxes alleged to be due. Two of the actions were brought in the name of the Oglala Sioux Tribe while the other three were brought in the name of the United States of America on behalf of the Oglala Sioux Tribe. The actions were consolidated for purposes of trial and at the close of all the evidence, on motions of plaintiffs, the court directed verdicts in favor of the plaintiffs for the amounts of the taxes severally alleged to be due by appellants. We shall hereinafter refer to appellants as defendants.
Defendants then moved for judgments notwithstanding the verdicts. Following the argument on which, the court announced, "The motions will be denied", and thereupon, pursuant to the verdicts as so directed, the court on October 10, 1957, entered separate money judgments against the defendants named in the actions brought by the tribe.
In the two actions brought by the tribe notices of appeal from the judgments entered October 10, 1957, were filed November 29, 1957, or twenty days beyond the time provided in Rule 73(a), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S. C.A. Rule 73(a), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, requires that notice of appeal, except where the United States is a party, shall be filed within thirty days from entry of the judgment appealed from. When, on October 10, 1957, the court entered money judgments, appropriate docket entries were made on the same day. On October 30, 1957, the clerk entered an order recapitulating the denial of defendants' motions for judgments notwithstanding the verdicts and for new trials as pronounced and entered on October 10, 1957. In resisting the motions to dismiss these two appeals defendants urge that the formal order entered by the clerk on October 30, 1957, was in fact the judgment of the court and hence their notices of appeal were filed within the time limited by Rule 73(a), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. We think this contention untenable. United States v. Schaefer Brewing Co., 356 U.S. 227, 78 S.Ct. 674, 678, 2 L.Ed.2d 721. In United States v. Schaefer Brewing Co., supra, the Supreme Court, speaking through Mr. Justice Whittaker, said:
It is to be noted in this connection that the notices of appeal describe as the judgments appealed from the judgments entered October 10, 1957. If, as contended by defendants, the orders entered by the clerk on October 30, 1957, were in fact the judgments of the court then those judgments have not been appealed from. Filing of notice of appeal within the time prescribed is jurisdictional. St. Luke's Hospital v. Melin, 8 Cir., 172 F.2d 532; Marten v. Hess, 6 Cir., 176 F.2d 834. Appeals in Nos. 15,967 and 15,968 are therefore dismissed.
There remains for consideration the issues raised by defendants in the actions brought by the United States on behalf of the Oglala Sioux Tribe. In seeking reversal in Nos. 15,969, 15,970 and 15,971 defendants in substance contend: (1) that the Federal District Court was without jurisdiction over a suit by the United States to collect a tax imposed by a tribe organized under Federal law on the use of Indian trust lands by non-members of the tribe, and (2) that a tax on the use of Indian trust lands imposed by an Indian tribe on non-members of the tribe violates the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution.
Section 1345, Title 28 U.S.C. in part provides that "the district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions, suits or proceedings commenced by the United States". Of course, if there is no obligation on behalf of the United States to the public or any individual, or it has no interest of its own, it could not maintain such an action. United States v. San Jacinto Tin Co., 125 U.S. 273, 8 S.Ct. 850, 31 L.Ed. 747. Where, however, the government has an obligation to its Indian wards as well as an interest of its own in the trust property and the tax involved, it may maintain the action. Heckman v. United States, 224 U.S. 413, 32 S.Ct. 424, 56 L.Ed. 820; United States v. Sandoval, 231 U.S. 28, 34 S.Ct. 1, 58 L.Ed. 107; United States v. Candelaria, 271 U.S. 432, 46 S.Ct. 561, 70 L.Ed. 1023; United States v. Board of Com'rs of Grady County, Okl., 10 Cir., 54 F.2d 593. In Heckman v. United States, supra 224 U.S. 413, 32 S.Ct. 431, it is said:
In United States v. Board of Com'rs of Grady County, Okl., supra, 54 F.2d 595 in sustaining the right and authority of the United States to maintain an action on behalf of an Indian tribe, the court said:
" * * *\'
Here there was a right of the Indians to levy this tax on non-members of the tribe using these lands. Thus in Iron Crow v. Oglala Sioux Tribe of Pine Ridge Res., 8 Cir., 231 F.2d 89, 99, we said:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Santa Clara Pueblo v. Martinez
...Church v. Navajo Tribal Council, 272 F.2d 131 (CA10 1959) (freedom of religion under First and Fourteenth Amendments); Barta v. Oglala Sioux Tribe, 259 F.2d 553 (CA8 1958), cert. denied, 358 U.S. 932, 79 S.Ct. 320, 3 L.Ed.2d 304 (1959) (Fourteenth Amendment). See also Martinez v. Southern U......
-
Merrion v. Jicarilla Apache Tribe Amoco Production Company v. Jicarilla Apache Indian Tribe
...that the power to tax is an inherent sovereign power not dependent on the power to exclude). 9. See also Barta v. Oglala Sioux Tribe of Pine Ridge Reservation, 259 F.2d 553 (CA8 1958) (lessees of tribal lands subject to Indian tax on use of land). 10. Here, the leases extend for as long as ......
-
Merrion v. Jicarilla Apache Tribe, s. 78-1154
...passage of the Act expressly upholding tribal taxes on the theory of the power of taxation share this assumption. Barta v. Oglala Sioux Tribe, 259 F.2d 553 (8th Cir. 1958), cert. denied, 358 U.S. 932, 79 S.Ct. 320, 3 L.Ed.2d 304 (1959); Iron Crow v. Oglala Sioux Tribe, 231 F.2d 89 (8th Cir.......
-
Wakaksan v. United States
...L.Ed. 196 (1895); Native American Church v. Navajo Tribal Council, 272 F.2d 131 (10th Cir. 1959); Barta v. Oglala Sioux Tribe of Pine Ridge Reservation, 259 F.2d 553, 556-557 (8th Cir. 1958); Iron Crow v. Oglala Sioux Tribe of Pine Ridge Reservation, 231 F.2d 89 (8th Cir. 1956); Toledo v. P......
-
Ninth Circuit Upholds TERO Requirements In Indian Country Mineral Leasing
...Fifth Amendment did not restrict the power of local tribal governments); Barta v. Oglala Sioux Tribe of Pine Ridge Reservation of S.D., 259 F.2d 553, 556 (8th Cir. 1958) (concluding that the Fourteenth Amendment did not restrict Indian [4] Santa Clara Pueblo v. Martinez, 436 U.S. 49, 57 (19......
-
Tribal incorporation of First Amendment norms: a case study of the Indian tribes of South Dakota.
...Council v. Minn. Chippewa Tribe, 370 F.2d 529, 533 (8th Cir. 1967); Native American Church, 272 F.2d 131; Barta v. Oglala Sioux Tribe, 259 F.2d 553 (8th Cir. 1958), cert. denied, 358 U.S. 932 (1959); Martinez v. Southern Ute Tribe, 249 F.2d 915, 919 (10th Cir. 1957); Keeler, 442 F.2d at 678......
-
CHAPTER 10 FEDERAL ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION OF MINERAL RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT WITH PARTICULAR EMPHASIS ON INDIAN LANDS
...over Indians on such lands. [88] 135 Fed. 947 (8th Cir. 1905), appeal dismissed 203 U.S. 599 (1906) [89] Barta v. Oglala Sioux Tribe, 259 F. 2d 553 (8th Cir. 1958), cert. denied, 368 U.S. 932 (1959); Iron Crow v. Oglala Sioux Tribe, 231 F. 2d 89 (8th Cir. 1956) [90] 55 I.D. 14 (1934) [91] 2......
-
Banishing Habeas Jurisdiction: Why Federal Courts Lack Jurisdiction to Hear Tribal Banishment Actions
...272 F.2d 131, 134-35 (10th Cir. 1959) (tribes not constrained by First Amendment); Barta v. Oglala Sioux Tribe of Pine Ridge Reservation, 259 F.2d 553, 556 (8th Cir. 1958) (tribes not constrained by Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments). Talton is still good law, and tribes remain free from cons......
-
Gilbert v. Flandreau Santee Sioux Tribe: the South Dakota Supreme Court assumes jurisdiction, overlooks federal Indian law, and misapplies constitutional principles to a tribal nation.
...tribes. See Talton v. Mayes, 163 U.S. 376 (1896) (holding that the Fifth Amendment does not apply to tribes); Barta v. Oglala Sioux Tribe, 259 F.2d 553 (8th Cir. 1958) (holding that the Fourteenth Amendment does not apply to tribes). See generally Patrick Garry, et al., Tribal Incorporation......
-
28 APPENDIX U.S.C. § 58 Entering Judgment
...Matteson v. United States, supra; Erstling v. Southern Bell Tel. & Tel. Co., 255 F.2d 93 (5th Cir. 1958); Barta v. Oglala Sioux Tribe, 259 F.2d 553 (8th Cir. 1958), cert. denied, 358 U.S. 932, 79 S.Ct. 320, 3 L.Ed.2d 304 (1959); Beacon Fed. S. & L. Assn. v. Federal Home L. Bank Bd., 266 F.2......