Northern Arapaho Tribe v. Harnsberger

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that joinder of a Native American tribe was not feasible because of the tribe’s sovereign immunity
• holding that an Indian tribe was a required party because excluding them might 28 lead to future, inconsistent legal determinations about the single interest in dispute by all 1 parties – whether a certain area of land qualified as Indian country
• noting that we review Rule 19 determinations for abuse of discretion
• reviewing a district court’s decision to dismiss an action for failure to join a required party for abuse of discretion
• outlining the indispensability standard under Rule 19(b), which governs situations where joinder is not feasible, and stating that the first step is to determine whether the party is required to be joined under Rule 19(a)
• finding the State of Wyoming faced a substantial risk of inconsistent obligations because another Indian tribe could relitigate the issue of whether a parcel of land qualified as “Indian country” and therefore could not be taxed by the state

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).