Yellowstone County, a Political Subdivision of the State of Montana v. Carl Pease

Good Law
96 Daily Journal DAR 11103·96 F.3d 1169·1996 WL 512363·36 Fed. R. Serv. 3d 169·1996 U.S. App. LEXIS 23906
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitSeptember 11, 199695-36026California3,947 words

Opinion

Opinion

O'Scannlain, J.

We must decide whether an Indian tribal court has subject matter jurisdiction to entertain an action challenging a county’s right to impose property taxes on reservation land held in fee by a member of the tribe.

I

Carl Pease, a member of the Crow Tribe of Indians (“the Tribe”) in Montana, appeals from the district court’s summary judgment for Yellowstone County (the “County”) in the County’s action seeking a declaratory judg ment that the Crow Tribal Court exceeded its jurisdiction by ruling that Pease was not required to pay property taxes imposed by the County.

Pease owns fee title to real property-located within the boundaries of the Crow Reservation. The property was allotted and patented in fee to Pease’s father under the Crow Allotment Act of 1920, 41 Stat. 751 .

Pease has failed to pay his state property taxes from 1987 to the present. In July 1991, he filed an action in Crow Tribal Court seeking to enjoin Yellowstone County from imposing state property taxes on his land. The parties agreed to stay the tribal court action pending the Supreme Court’s decision in County of Yakima v. Confederated Tribes and Bands of Yakima Indian Nation, 502 U.S. 251 , 112 S.Ct. 683 , 116…

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.