Blackwolf v. District Court of Sixteenth Judicial Dist. In and For Rosebud County, 12167
| Decision Date | 23 February 1972 |
| Docket Number | No. 12167,12167 |
| Citation | 493 P.2d 1293,158 Mont. 523 |
| Parties | In the Matter of Leland (Leo) BLACKWOLF et al., Petitioners, v. DISTRICT COURT OF the SIXTEENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT of the State of Montana, IN AND FOR the COUNTY OF ROSEBUD and the Honorable Alfred B. Coate, Judge, Respondents. |
| Court | Montana Supreme Court |
Barney Reagan (argued), Helena, Thomas J. Lynaugh (argued), Hardin, William N. Jensen and Thomas E. Ashton, III, Helena, for petitioners.
Robert L. Woodahl, Atty. Gen., Helena, David V. Gliko, Asst. Atty. Gen. (argued), Helena, Otis L. Packwood, Billings, William F. Meisburger, County Atty., Forsyth, for respondents.
This matter is before the Court as an original proceeding. Petitioners, enrolled members of the Northern Cheyenne Indian Tribe in Rosebud County, seek a writ of supervisory control, writ of review, writ of prohibition or other appropriate relief from the action of the juvenile court of the sixteenth judicial district, county of Rosebud.
Petitioners are charged in the juvenile court of the sixteenth judicial district in three separate actions as delinquent minors for alleged acts of delinquency which occurred within the exterior boundaries of the Northern Cheyenne Indian Reservation.
The charges were preceded by three separate juvenile hearings before the Northern Cheyenne Tribal Court. It is agreed tht the Tribal Court has jurisdiction. The Tribal Court, in turn, 'remanded' the proceedings to respondent state court under the authority of the 'Revised Law and Order Code of the Northern Cheyenne Reservation, Chapter IV, Section 4, Juvenile Delinquency, Paragraph 9(4)', which authorizes in pertinent part:
'(1) Place the child on probation for supervision upon such terms as the court shall determine.
'(2) Admit the child to a suitable public or private agency or institution or take temporary custody and authorize his placement in a suitable foster home.
'(3) Order such further care and treatment as the court may deem necessary for the best interests of the child.
'(4) Order the child delivered into the appropriate juvenile department of the District Court for such disposition as it may make through use of the facilities and institutions provided by the State of Montana in the interests of the child and of the Tribe and of the State, provided that, upon the assumption of jurisdiction by the Juvenile Court of the Judicial District by means of this section, the jurisdiction of the Tribal Court shall end.' (Emphasis added).
In response to petitions filed by the county attorney of Rosebud County alleging the juveniles to be delinquents, the state juvenile court exercised its jurisdiction by issuance of citations. All petitioners and their parents were served with process within the exterior boundaries of the Northern Cheyenne Indian Reservation.
Petitioners moved the respondent juvenile court to dismiss the Rosebud county attorney's three petitions for lack of jurisdiction. On October 21, 1971, the juvenile court denied the motion. The pertinent conclusions of law in the order denying the motion are:
* * *
* * *'
Such order is not an appealable order, thus this petition was filed in this Court as an original proceeding seeking an appropriate writ to reverse the action of the juvenile court.
This Court accepted jurisdiction and oral arguments were had on January 13, 1972.
At this point we emphasize tht all matters concerning the exercise of jurisdiction by state courts over enrolled Indian citizens who reside within the exterior boundaries of an Indian reservation are controlled solely by federal law, as to acts or transactions within the exterior boundaries of the reservation.
On the day set for oral argument in this Court, the United States government requested a period of ten days in which to determine whether or not an amicus curiae brief on behalf of the federal government by the Solicitor General would be filed. The extension was granted. The time period expired; no brief was filed and no further extension of time was requested. Therefore, the cause was submitted to this Court for determination on January 27, 1972.
Petitioners contend the juvenile court of the sixteenth judicial district is without jurisdiction. Further, that the Northern Cheyenne Tribe cannot confer jurisdiction nor can the juvenile court accept jurisdiction from the Tribe, since procedural rules and legislative action, both as to the state and the Tribe, have not been followed in order for the state of Montana to have concurrent jurisdiction...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Wildcatt v. Smith, 8330DC773
...v. Dewey County Bank, 335 F.Supp. 133 (D.S.D.1971) (civil jurisdiction to enforce judgment on reservation); Blackwolf v. District Court, 158 Mont. 523, 493 P.2d 1293 (1972) (juvenile delinquency proceedings); Crow Tribe v. Deernose, 158 Mont. 25, 487 P.2d 1133 (1971) (jurisdiction over real......
-
Application of Bertelson
...claim that the tribe has generally ceded jurisdiction over all child custody matters to the state cannot prevail. Blackwolf v. District Ct. (1972), 158 Mont. 523, 493 P.2d 1293, Kennerly v. District Ct. (1971), 400 U.S. 423, 91 S.Ct. 480, 27 L.Ed.2d We see no impediments in Acts of Congress......
-
State ex rel. Iron Bear v. District Court of Fifteenth Judicial Dist. In and For Roosevelt County
...v. District Court, 400 U.S. 423, 91 S.Ct. 480, 27 L.Ed.2d 507; Crow Tribe v. Deernose, 158 Mont. 25, 487 P.2d 1133; Blackwolf v. District Court, 158 Mont. 523, 493 P.2d 1293. The 1938 Enactment by the executive board of the Assiniboine-Sioux Tribe reads in pertinent '* * * no marriage or di......
-
Francisco v. State
...State Securities, Inc. v. Anderson, 84 N.M. 629, 506 P.2d 786 (1973) (dissenting opinion); Blackwolf v. District Court of Sixteenth Judicial District, 158 Mont. 523, 493 P.2d 1293 (1972); Martin v. Denver Juvenile Court, 177 Colo. 261, 493 P.2d 1093 (1972). As stated in Annis v. Dewey Count......