Oneida Indian Nation of New York State v. Oneida

How courts have described this case

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

• stating that the Oneidas had never abandoned their claim to their ancestral homeland but not defining the term abandonment or interpreting any statute or treaty in that regard
• “Adverse possession and laches are no defense to a suit by the government to protect restricted land.”
• “By prohibiting all unauthorized dealings with Indians, [the Nonintercourse Act] cuts off any inquiry into the fairness of such dealings insofar as the validity of the resulting transfer is concerned.”
• “Although the present owners of the [land] may have acted in good faith when acquiring their property, such good faith will not render good a title otherwise not valid for failure to comply with the Nonin-tercourse Act.”
• “Although the present owners of the 100,000 acres may have acted in good faith when acquiring their property, such good faith will not render good a title otherwise not valid for failure to comply with the Nonintercourse Act.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).