Court Opinion

ID: 9592143
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 00:10:50.37688+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:01:16.102820
License: Public Domain

BIEGELMEIER, Judge
(concurring).
In United States v. La Plant, 200 F. 92 (D.C.S.D.1911), Judge Willard wrote:
"The question here concerns the relative jurisdiction of the state courts and the federal courts. It is important to definitely know over what land the state courts have jurisdiction and over what land the federal courts have jurisdiction * * *".
Defendant's brief states that by reason of Seymour v. Superintendent etc., 368 U.S. 351, 82 S.Ct. 424, 7 L.Ed.2d 346, the La Plant case has been seriously questioned, if not overruled by Putnam v. United States, 8 Cir., 1957, 248 F.2d 292. See also United States ex rel. Miner v. Erickson, 8 Cir., 1970, 428 F.2d 623, Judge Lay dissenting, and The City of New Town, North Dakota v. United States, 8 Cir., 1972, 454 F.2d 121. La Plant was relied on by this court in State v. Sauter, 48 S.D. 409, 205 N.W. 25, and cited in Lafferty v. State, 80 S.D. 411, 125 N.W.2d 171, and State v. Barnes, 81 S.D. 511, 137 N.W.2d 683. These and other opinions of this court may be subject to the same uncertainty as to what part of original reservations remains as Indian country. 18 U.S.C. § 1151.
The construction of federal statutes is clearly within the province of the United States Supreme Court as the final arbiter, and in view of the importance of the question involved and the fact that on March 14, 1972, a petition for certiorari was filed in that court to review the Arnett v. 5 Gill Nets, 20 Cal.App.3d 729, 97 Cal.Rptr. 894, opinion (sub nomine, Mattz v. Arnett, 71-1182, 40 U.S. Law Week 3494), it may be in the public interest that the Attorney General will file a similar petition as to this decision.
WOLLMAN, J., concurs in the above.
DOYLE, J., concurs in the certiorari suggestion.