Oneida Indian Nation of New York v. New York

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that \the Treaty of Fort Schuyler cannot reasonably be understood to have divested the Oneidas of their aboriginal title\
• noting that Article 2 of the treaty \specifically states that the Oneidas `hold to themselves and their posterity forever' the `reserved lands'\
• finding that “Defendant cannot rely on Plaintiffs’ delay in 13 bringing suit to escape liability” but that “the defense of mitigation is relevant to 14 [the] issue of damages”
• using the same reasoning, on a motion to strike, court allowed defenses of abandonment, and release and relinquishment to stand
• allowing an equitable recoupment defense in the context of offsetting requests for declaratory judgments in a land rights case
• observing the “United States’ post–1805 treatment of the Oneidas as a unified nation” as depicted in the 1838 Treaty of Buffalo Creek

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).