Case Name: ERNEST RISLING, PETER MASTEN, MARY G. DORNBACH, AS THE REPRESENTATIVES, AND ON THE RELATION OF THE INDIANS OF CALIFORNIA, APPELLANTS, v. THE UNITED STATES, APPELLEE
Court: United States Court of Claims
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1952-05-06
Citations: 122 Ct. Cl. 419
Docket Number: Appeals Docket No. 8; Indian Claims Commission No. 37
Parties: ERNEST RISLING, PETER MASTEN, MARY G. DORNBACH, AS THE REPRESENTATIVES, AND ON THE RELATION OF THE INDIANS OF CALIFORNIA, APPELLANTS, v. THE UNITED STATES, APPELLEE
Judges: 
Reporter: United States Court of Claims Reports
Volume: 122
Pages: 419–420

Head Matter:
ERNEST RISLING, PETER MASTEN, MARY G. DORNBACH, AS THE REPRESENTATIVES, AND ON THE RELATION OF THE INDIANS OF CALIFORNIA, APPELLANTS, v. THE UNITED STATES, APPELLEE
[Appeals Docket No. 8.
Decided May 6, 1952]
[Indian Claims Commission No. 37]
Mr. Thurm,m Arnold for tbe appellants. Messrs. Reginald E. Foster and Walton Hamüton; and Arnold, Fortas & Porter were on the briefs.
Mr. Ralph A. Barney, with whom was Mr. Assistant Attorney General A. Devitt Yanech, for the appellee.
Appellee’s petition for writ of certiorari pending.

Opinion:
PER CtjRiam
: This is a companion case to the case of Clyde F. Thompson, et al., as the representatives of and on the relation of the Indians of California, Appeal No. 9, decided this day. This case was filed by appellants as case No. 37 before the Indian Claims Commission. The Commission held a hearing on the answer of the appellee raising the question of the capacity of the "Indians of California" to prosecute the claim, presented in the petition to the Commission, as an "identifiable group" under the jurisdictional provisions of Sec. 2 of the Indian Claims Commission Act of August 13, 1946, 60 Stat. 1049.
The Indian Claims Commission dismissed the petition for lack of jurisdiction to hear and determine the claims, on the ground that the term "identifiable group," used in Sec. 2 of the Indian Claims Commission Act, contemplated a group of Indians in the nature of a tribe or band having a common or group claim and that the "Indians of California" were not such an "identifiable group" of Indians having a common or group claim.
For the reasons set forth in the opinion, this day rendered, in the case of Clyde F. Thompson, et al., on the relation of the Indians of California, Appeal No. 9, we are of the opinion that the Commission erred in its decision that it did not have jurisdiction to hear and determine the claim or claims presented by appellants.
The decision of the Commission is therefore reversed, and the case is remanded for hearing and determination on the merits.