comparemela.com

Latest Breaking News On - Choctaw reservation - Page 3 : comparemela.com

OCCA overturns McAlester man s murder conviction

OCCA overturns McAlester man s murder conviction
mcalesternews.com - get the latest breaking news, showbiz & celebrity photos, sport news & rumours, viral videos and top stories from mcalesternews.com Daily Mail and Mail on Sunday newspapers.

Oklahoma court rules that McGirt decision does not apply retroactively

OKLAHOMA CITY — The state’s highest criminal appeals court ruled Thursday that conviction appeals related to a recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling cannot be applied retroactively to undo a final

Choctaw Nation gets $944 million in American Rescue Plan funds

Oklahoma prosecutor argues that McGirt is not retroactive

Oklahoma prosecutor argues that McGirt is not retroactive May 22, 2021 FacebookTwitterEmail OKLAHOMA CITY (AP) An Oklahoma court has agreed to consider a prosecutor’s assertion that a U.S. Supreme Court ruling that the state lacks jurisdiction for certain crimes on land within tribal reservations is not retroactive. The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals on Friday granted Pushmataha County District Attorney Mark Matloff s request for a stay of court proceedings in the case of Clifton Parish and directed Matloff and defense attorney Debra Hampton to file briefs in the case. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in what is known as the McGirt decision that Oklahoma lacks jurisdiction for crimes committed on tribal reservations in which the defendants or victims were tribal citizens.

May 2021 Indian Nations Law Update

Wednesday, May 12, 2021 In  Navajo Nation v. U.S. Department of the Interior, 2021 WL 1655885 (9th Cir. 2021), the Navajo Nation sued the Department of the Interior (Interior), the Secretary of the Interior (the Secretary), the Bureau of Reclamation, and the Bureau of Indian Affairs (collectively, the Federal Appellees) for breach of trust based on the government’s failure to consider the Nation’s as-yet-undetermined water rights under the  Winters doctrine in managing the Colorado River. Several parties, including Arizona, Nevada, and various state water, irrigation, and agricultural districts and authorities (Intervenors), intervened to protect their interests in the Colorado’s waters. The district court dismissed for lack of jurisdiction on the ground that the Supreme Court had reserved jurisdiction over allocation of rights to the Colorado River in its 1963 decision in 

© 2025 Vimarsana

vimarsana © 2020. All Rights Reserved.