Court Opinion

ID: 9795406
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 03:28:23.018166+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:29:55.083692
License: Public Domain

MATTHEWS, Justice,
concurring.
Joined by Justice Compton, I dissented in the first decision in this case.1 My view was and is that tribes, absent an act of Congress, do not have jurisdiction to decide child eusto-dy cases that do not arise in Indian Country. But the majority opinion took the opposite view. It may be that other courts, or this court in future cases, will decide that this important jurisdictional point was erroncously decided. But the majority opinion determined the law that governs the parties in this court. I consider myself bound by that determination under the doctrine of the law of the case.2 Proceeding thus, I agree with today's opinion.

. See John v. Baker, 982 P.2d 738, 765 (Alaska 1999).

. A number of courts have indicated that the law of the case doctrine exerts a stronger claim on the finality of prior rulings than the doctrine of stare decisis. See, eg., Zdanok v. Glidden Co., 327 F.2d 944, 952 (2d Cir.1964); White v. Higgins, 116 F.2d 312, 317 (1st Cir.1940).