Case ID: f2d_713/html/0502-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM:", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

The NORTHERN CHEYENNE TRIBE OF NORTHERN CHEYENNE INDIAN RESERVATION, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Thomas Ralph ADSIT, et al., Defendants-Appellees.
    Nos. 79-4887, 80-3028, 80-3032, 80-3038, 80-3040, 80-3041, 80-3042, 80-3044, 80-3045, 80-3061, 80-3062 and 80-3063.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Argued and Submitted July 15, 1983.
    Decided Aug. 17, 1983.
    Thomas Pacheco, Dept, of Justice, Washington, D.C., for U.S.
    
      Jeanne S. Whiteing, John E. Echohawk, Boulder, Colo., Calvin Wilson, Busby, Mont., for Cheyenne Tribe.
    R. Anthony Rogers, John Michael Facciola, Glenn P. Sugameli, Wilkinson, Cragun & Barker, Washington, D.C., Thomas J. Lynaugh, Lynaugh, Fitzgerald, Schoppert & Skaggs, Billings, Mont., for Crow Tribe and The Confederated Salish & Kootenai Tribes.
    Reid Peyton Chambers, Sonosky, Chambers & Sachse, Washington, D.C., for Assiniboine and Sioux Tribes, intervenors.
    Steven L. Bunch, Montana Legal Services Ass’n, Helena, Mont., for Bowen.
    Helena S. Maclay, Deirdre Boggs, Bruce McEvoy, Missoula, Mont., Bert W. Kronmiller, James E. Seykora, Douglas Y. Freeman, Hardin, Mont., for State of Mont.
    Cale Crowley, Crowley, Haughey, Hanson, Gallagher & Toole, Maurice R. Colberg, Jr., Hibbs, Sweeney, Colberg, Jensen & Koessler, Billings, Mont., for numerous defendants-appellees.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Montana; James F. Battin and Paul G. Hatfield, District Judges, Presiding.
    Before MERRILL, CHOY and FERGUSON, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

In Northern Cheyenne Tribe v. Adsit, 668 F.2d 1080 (9th Cir.1982), we reversed the judgment of the district court.

The Supreme Court in turn reversed our determination sub nom. Arizona v. San Carlos Apache Tribe of Arizona,-U.S.-, 103 S.Ct. 3201, 77 L.Ed.2d 837 (1983).

The judgment of the district court, 484 F.Supp. 31, is AFFIRMED.