Hy-Yu-Tse-Mil-Kin v. Smith
Citations
- 119 F. 114
- 55 C.C.A. 216
- 1902 U.S. App. LEXIS 4647
Syllabus
<p>1. Indians—Suits for Allotment of Lands—Special Jurisdiction of Circuit Court.</p> <p>Act Aug. 15, 1894 (28 Stat. 305), confers on a circuit court of the United States jurisdiction to decree relief to an Indian, entitled under the law to an allotment of certain lands, of which right he has been deprived by the rulings of the land department.</p> <p>2. Same—Parties.</p> <p>The provision of such act, that the decree of the court in favor of a claimant in a suit brought thereunder shall have the same effect as an allotment allowed and approved by the secretary of ttfe interior, is in effect a consent upon the part of the United States to be bound by such decree; and, where the suit involves simply a question of priority of right between two claimants, the United States is not a necessary party.</p> <p>8. Same—Equities between Allottees—Priority of Selection and Improvement.</p> <p>It was the intention of congress by Act March 3, 1885 (23 Stat. 340), •providing for the allotment of lands in severalty to members of the Walla Walla and other Indian tribes, which gave them the right to select the land they wished allotted to them, that, where more than one person selected the same land, the allotment should be made with reference to priority of selection, residence, and improvement, in accordance with the principle which has always been recognized in the disposition of public lands; and an Indian woman of the tribe, who selected and improved land with the consent of the tribal authorities, but whose right to an allotment was erroneously denied by the land department, cannot be deprived of her prior right to the land, so selected and improved, after such ruling has been reversed, by the fact that it had been subsequently allotted to another member of the tribe, who was put in possession, but who had full knowledge of her claim; nor is she estopped to assert her preferred right by the fact that she afterwards accepted a different allotment, with the understanding and on t
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- granting protective order where the requesting party “pro- vided evidence supporting the conclusion that it has sensitive commercial in- formation” (emphasis added)
- “Permitting attorneys’ eyes only restrictions as a general matter, … in light of the intellectual property concerns Micron Technology faces, is appropriate. Again, this is not an uncommon feature in protective orders in modern complex commercial litigation.”
- requiring a 12 document-by-document review “could increase the cost of production 13 dramatically and make production more time consuming. Sometimes it is 14 better and more simple just to designate a document as confidential to 15 facilitate speedy production of discovery.”
- The disclosure of trade 13 secrets, sensitive commercial information, and information that gives a competitive advantage are 14 proper subjects of a protective order.
- The disclosure of trade 5 secrets, sensitive commercial information, and information that gives a competitive 6 advantage are proper subjects of a protective order.
- disclosure of trade secrets, sensitive 7 commercial information, and information that gives a competitive advantage are 8 proper subjects of a protective order
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Haven
Read full opinion on CourtListenerSourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.