ARIZONA ET AL.

v.

SAN CARLOS APACHE TRIBE OF ARIZONA ET AL.; ARIZONA ET AL. V. NAVAJO TRIBE OF INDIANS ET AL.; AND MONTANA ET AL. V. NORTHERN CHEYENNE TRIBE OF THE NORTHERN CHEYENNE INDIAN RESERVATION ET AL.

Citator

Cited By

• California v. Ramos, 463 U.S. 992 (U.S. 1983)
  …ower to commute a death sentence, it leaves the jury with the mistaken belief that the only way to keep the defendant off the streets is to condemn him to death. Accordingly, the court remanded for a new penalty phase.6 [*997] We granted certiorari, 459 U. S. 821 (1982), and now reverse and remand.7 II In challenging the constitutionality of the Briggs Instruction, respondent presses upon us the two central arguments [*998] advanced by the Supreme Court of California in its decision. He contends (1) that a…
• Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp. v. Pfeifer, 462 U.S. 523 (U.S. 1983)
  …6 Stat. 1263, 33 U. S. C. § 905. We granted certiorari to decide whether petitioner may be subject to both forms of liability, and also to consider whether the Court of Appeals correctly upheld the trial court’s computation of respondent’s damages. 459 U. S. 821 (1982). [*526] Petitioner owns a fleet of barges that it regularly operates on three navigable rivers in the vicinity of Pittsburgh, Pa. Respondent was employed for 19 years to aid in loading and unloading those barges at one of petitioner’s plants…
• Arizona v. San Carlos Apache Tribe of Arizona, 463 U.S. 545 (U.S. 1983)
  …lorado River, except to note that “the district judge did not make findings on this issue and the record indicates significant differences between these cases and [Colorado River].” 668 F. 2d, at 1098; see 668 F. 2d, at 1102. We granted certiorari, 459 U. S. 821 (1982), in order to resolve a conflict among the Circuits regarding the role of federal and state courts in adjudicating Indian water rights.9 We now reverse. Ill A At the outset of our analysis, a number of propositions are clear. First, the fe…