Federal Case

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that the lack of an alternative remedy is “less troublesome” where “dismissal of [the] suit is mandated by the policy of tribal immunity”
• finding United States’ representation inadequate where the United States’ allegiance was “necessarily split among three competing tribes”
• “Conflicting claims by beneficiaries to a common trust present a textbook example of a case where one party may be severely prejudiced by a decision in his absence” (citing Williams v. Bankhead, 19 Wall. 563, 570-571 (1874))
• finding an “independent duty to raise” an “indispensable party claim” based on tribal immunity
• \[T]he dismissal turns on the fact that society has consciously opted to shield Indian tribes from suit without congressional or tribal consent.\
• when interests are mutually exclusive, the court cannot afford relief on one party without affecting the rights of the other party

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).