Gourneau v. Smith
| Decision Date | 12 April 1973 |
| Docket Number | No. 8842,8842 |
| Parties | Sharon GOURNEAU, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. Vincent SMITH, Defendant and Respondent. Civ. |
| Court | North Dakota Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court
1. The State courts have no jurisdiction of an action brought by one Indian against another Indian for injuries and damages resulting from an automobile accident occurring on a State highway within the territorial limits of an Indian reservation, where the Indians on the reservation have not voted, as provided by law, to accept State jurisdiction.
2. For reasons stated in the opinion, the judgment of the district court dismissing the plaintiff's complaint for lack of jurisdiction is affirmed.
Lanier, Knox & Olson, Fargo, for plaintiff and appellant.
Helgi Johanneson, Atty. Gen., and Vance K. Hill, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., Bismarck, for defendant and respondent and the Unsatisfied Judgment Fund of the State of North Dakota.
The plaintiff appeals from a judgment entered in the district court dismission her complaint on the ground that the court lacked jurisdiction to hear the matter. She had started the action for personal injuries which she claims to have suffered as a result of an automobile accident occurring on a State highway on the Turtle Mountain Indian Reservation on November 15, 1970. Both the plaintiff and the defendant are enrolled members of that reservation.
The defendant failed to answer the complaint as required by law and the North Dakota Rules of Civil Procedure. Upon his default, service of process was made on the Unsatisfied Judgment Fund by the plaintiff. The Fund appeared in the case and assumed the defense thereof. On motion by the attorney for the Fund, the trial court dismissed the plaintiff's complaint on the ground that the court lacked jurisdiction. The plaintiff thereupon appealed from the judgment dismissing her complaint.
The only issue for us to determine on this appeal is whether the State courts have jurisdiction of an action brought by one Indian against another Indian for injuries resulting from an automobile accident which takes place on a State highway within the limits of an Indian reservation. Our attention has been called to the case of Vermillion v. Spotted Elk, 85 N.W.2d 432, decided by this court in 1957. That was an action between two Indians arising out of an automobile accident in which the facts were almost identical to those in the case at bar. In that case, the court held that Indians are citizens of the United States and residents of the State, and that courts of the State, under Article I, Section 22, of the North Dakota Constitution, are open to them for prosecution of civil actions where such actions do not involve title to lands.
We conclude that Vermillion no longer states the rule to be applied in determining whether State courts have jurisdiction in a case between Indians arising out of use of the public highways on an Indian reservation. There can be no doubt that State highways within the boundaries of a reservation are a part of the reservation. 'Indian country' is defined by Federal law as being all land within the limits of an Indian reservation under jurisdiction of the United States Government, 'including rights-of-way running through the reservation, . . .' 18 U.S.C.A. Sec. 1151.
We would further point out that, subsequent to Vermillion, this court held that Chapter 27--19 of the North Dakota Century Code, enacted in 1963 in accordance with Public Law 280 of the Eighty-third Congress, Chapter 505 of the United States Statutes at Large, Volume 67, and in accordance with the 1958 amendment of Section 203 of the North Dakota Constitution, provided for methods of acceptance of jurisdiction of State courts by Indians. That chapter provided for such acceptance of jurisdiction over civil causes of action arising on an Indian reservation and for withdrawal of such jurisdiction, at the discretion of the adult enrolled residents of the reservation, if such discretion was exercised by the Indians as provided by law. In re Whiteshield, 124 N.W.2d 694 (N.D.1963). We further held in Whiteshield that the 1963 statute operated as a complete disclaimer of State jurisdiction over civil causes arising on an Indian reservation, in the absence of acceptance of jurisdiction by the Indians. Section 27--19--01, North Dakota Century Code, specifically provides that jurisdiction of the State shall be extended over all civil causes of action which arise on an Indian reservation 'upon acceptance by Indian citizens in a manner provided by this chapter.'
Chapter 27--19, North Dakota Century Code, which deals with Indian civil jurisdiction, was enacted under the authority granted to the States by the United States. Pub.L. No. 83--280 (Aug. 15, 1953). Indian jurisdiction was further dealt with by the enactment by the Congress on April 11, 1968, of Public Law 90--284, Section 402. That law provides, in part:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People ex rel. Becerra v. Huber
...S.Ct. 2267, italics omitted; see Vermillion v. Spotted Elk (N.D. 1957) 85 N.W.2d 432, 438 (Vermillion ), overruled by Gourneau v. Smith (N.D. 1973) 207 N.W.2d 256, 258.) Under Vermillion the entire state court action in Three Affiliated Tribes I would have been permitted to proceed, regardl......
-
Three Affiliated Tribes of Fort Berthold Reservation v. Wold Engineering
...Indians" in disclaiming state jurisdiction. 321 N.W.2d, at 513. The court had proceeded on a similar assumption before; in Gourneau v. Smith, 207 N.W.2d 256 (1973), for example, the court rejected an Indian plaintiff's jurisdictional claim based on the "open courts" provision of N.D. Const.......
-
State v. Webster
...697 (1958); Sigana v. Bailey, 282 Minn. 367, 164 N.W.2d 886 (1969); Schantz v. White Lightning, 231 N.W.2d 812 (N.D.1975); Gourneau v. Smith, 207 N.W.2d 256 (N.D.1973). Cf. State v. Dugan, 52 N.C.App. 136, 277 S.E.2d 842 (1981).9 As noted in Webster v. Department of Revenue, 102 Wis.2d 332,......
-
State v. Schmuck
...and within the territorial jurisdiction of the tribal police. (Italics ours.) Ortiz-Barraza, 512 F.2d at 1180 (citing Gourneau v. Smith, 207 N.W.2d 256 (N.D.1973)). We agree with the Ninth Circuit. Just because Schmuck's offense was committed on a public road does not mean he is immune from......
-
Walking the Straight and Narrow: Another Squeeze on Tribal Civil Jurisdiction Over Nonmembers in Smith v. Salish Kootenai College, 378 F.3d 1048 (9th Cir. 2004)
...217, 223 (1959)). 141. Id. at 13 (citing Schantz v. White Lightning, 231 N.W.2d 812 (N.D. 1975)). 142. Id. (citing Gourneau v. Smith, 207 N.W.2d 256 (N.D. 1973)). 143. Winer, 674 N.W.2d at 14. 144. Id. at 14 (quoting Strate, 520 U.S. at 442). 145. Id . at 14. 146. Id. at 15. 147. Id. The Wi......