Peabody Coal Co. v. Navajo Nation

Good Law
75 F.3d 457·96 Daily Journal DAR 496·1996 WL 12870·1996 U.S. App. LEXIS 434·96 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 317
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitJanuary 16, 1996Nos. 94-15647, 94-15650 and 94-16622California5,715 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Choy, J.

Introduction

These consolidated appeals present another chapter in the long-standing controversy between the Hopi and Navajo over governing reservation lands in northeastern Arizona. These appeals arise from the District of Arizona and present two issues. First, did the district court, Judge Strand presiding, err in holding that the Navajo have exclusive governmental power over the Navajo Partitioned Lands to the extent that the Navajo may unilaterally impose a Possessory Interest Tax and Business Activity Tax on Peabody’s mining activity? And second, did the district court, Judge Van Sickle presiding, err in holding that taxes imposed by the Navajo on Peabody’s mining activities are not “proceeds” under 25 U.S.C. § 640d-6 which must be shared with the Hopi? We affirm the holding of Judge Strand and reverse the holding of Judge Van Sickle.

Factual Background

These appeals concern the former “Joint Use Area” as designated by the United States District Court in Healing v. Jones, 210 F.Supp. 125 (D.Ariz.1962). In Healing , a three-judge district court panel held that, subject to the trust title of the United States, the Hopi and Navajo shared an undivided interest in the Joint Use…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.