User Tools

Site Tools


enabling_act

Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

Link to this comparison view

Both sides previous revisionPrevious revision
Next revision
Previous revision
Next revisionBoth sides next revision
enabling_act [2020/07/11 19:13] – adding links jetenabling_act [2020/07/11 19:25] jet
Line 113: Line 113:
 under section 4 of the Enabling Act, congress could enact an act making under section 4 of the Enabling Act, congress could enact an act making
 criminal the introduction of intoxicating liquor upon an allotment within the criminal the introduction of intoxicating liquor upon an allotment within the
-limits of an Indian reservation. United States v. Sutton, 215 U.S. 291, 30 S. +limits of an Indian reservation. United States v. Sutton, 215 U.S. 291, 30 S.Ct. 116, 54 L. Ed.  200 (1909).
-Ct. 116, 54 L. Ed.  200 (1909).+
  
 Lands within South Dakota which were formerly a part of an Indian reservation Lands within South Dakota which were formerly a part of an Indian reservation
 and not restored to the public domain and open to settlement, but held by an and not restored to the public domain and open to settlement, but held by an
 Indian allottee under a trust patent, are Indian lands over which the United Indian allottee under a trust patent, are Indian lands over which the United
-States has exclusive jurisdiction. Ex Parte Van Moore, 221 F. 954 (D. S.D. +States has exclusive jurisdiction. Ex Parte Van Moore, 221 F. 954 (D. S.D. 1915).
-1915).+
  
 Under the Enabling Act and the disclaimer provision in the Constitution of Under the Enabling Act and the disclaimer provision in the Constitution of
Line 130: Line 128:
 Whether Indian pantentees of land in a reservation, created by Indian treaty, Whether Indian pantentees of land in a reservation, created by Indian treaty,
 took to high or low watermark of a lake was not a question of state law. took to high or low watermark of a lake was not a question of state law.
-Montana Power Co. v. Rochester, 127 F.2d 189 (9th Cir. 1942).+Montana Power Co. v. Rochester, [[https://courtlistener.com/c/F.2d/127/189/|127 F.2d 189]] (9th Cir. 1942).
  
 == -Jurisdiction of State. == == -Jurisdiction of State. ==
Line 288: Line 286:
 upon the question of its adoption and upon the question of the adoption of the upon the question of its adoption and upon the question of the adoption of the
 Constitution was legally adopted though it failed to receive a majority of Constitution was legally adopted though it failed to receive a majority of
-votes cast for governor. State ex rel. Larabee v. Barnes, 3 N.D. 319, 55 N.W.+votes cast for governor. State ex rel. Larabee v. Barnes, [[https://links.casemakerlegal.com/docid/3777349?bookname=public_url&ci=95|3 N.D. 319]], 55 N.W.
 883 (1893). 883 (1893).
 </WRAP> </WRAP>
Line 342: Line 340:
 permanency of the funds acquired through the grant. The state is limited to the permanency of the funds acquired through the grant. The state is limited to the
 use of the interest from the permanent fund and the interest shall be used only use of the interest from the permanent fund and the interest shall be used only
-for the support of schools. State ex rel. Bd. Of Univ. & Sch. Lands v. +for the support of schools.  
-McMillan, 12 N.D. 280, 96 N.W. 310 (1903), distinguished, Lang v. City of +State ex rel. Bd. Of Univ. & Sch. Lands v. McMillan,  
-Cavalier, 59 N.D. 75, 228 N.W. 819 (1930).+[[https://links.casemakerlegal.com/docid/2530415?bookname=public_url&ci=95|12 N.D. 280]], 96 N.W. 310 (1903), distinguished,  
 +Lang v. City of Cavalier, [[https://links.casemakerlegal.com/docid/1083924?bookname=public_url&ci=95|59 N.D. 75]], 228 N.W. 819 (1930).
  
 The assembly cannot divert nor authorize diversion of any part of the principal The assembly cannot divert nor authorize diversion of any part of the principal
Line 353: Line 352:
 an individual, by the assembly directly, or by the board of university and an individual, by the assembly directly, or by the board of university and
 school lands by legislative enactment is unconstitutional. State ex rel. Sathre school lands by legislative enactment is unconstitutional. State ex rel. Sathre
-v. Board of Univ. & Sch. Lands, 65 N.D. 687, 262 N.W. 60 (1935).+v. Board of Univ. & Sch. Lands, [[https://links.casemakerlegal.com/docid/3777356?bookname=public_url&ci=95|65 N.D. 687]], 262 N.W. 60 (1935).
 </WRAP> </WRAP>
  
enabling_act.txt · Last modified: 2020/07/12 03:21 by jet

Except where otherwise noted, content on this wiki is licensed under the following license: CC0 1.0 Universal
CC0 1.0 Universal Donate Powered by PHP Valid HTML5 Valid CSS Driven by DokuWiki