KIOWA TRIBE OF OKLAHOMA

v.

MANUFACTURING TECHNOLOGIES, INC.

Citator

Cited By

• Ohio Adult Parole Auth. v. Woodard, 523 U.S. 272 (U.S. 1998)
  …stent with the holding and rationale of Dumschat. Evitts did not purport to overrule Dumschat. He also concluded that respondent’s Fifth Amendment claim was too speculative, given the voluntary nature of the clemency interview We granted certiorari, 521 U. S. 1117 (1997), and we now reverse. II Respondent argues first, in disagreement with the Court of Appeals, that there is a life interest in clemency broader in scope than the “original” life interest adjudicated at trial and sentencing. Ford v. Wainwright…
• Kiowa Tribe of Oklahoma v. Mfg. Techs., Inc., 523 U.S. 751 (U.S. 1998)
  …a Court of Civil Appeals affirmed, holding Indian tribes are subject to suit in state court for breaches of contract involving off-reservation commercial conduct. The Oklahoma Supreme Court declined to review the judgment, and we granted certiorari. 521 U. S. 1117 (1997). II As a matter of federal law, an Indian tribe is subject to suit only where Congress has authorized the suit or the tribe has waived its immunity. See Three Affiliated Tribes of Fort Berthold Reservation v. Wold Engineering, P. C., 476 U.…
• Phillips v. Wash. Legal Found., 524 U.S. 156 (U.S. 1998)
  …Access to Justice Foundation, 94 F. 3d 996, 1004 (1996). Because of a split over whether the interest income generated by funds held in IOLTA accounts is private property for purposes of the Fifth Amendment’s Takings Clause,3 we granted certiorari. 521 U.S. 1117 (1997). II The Fifth Amendment, made applicable to the States through the Fourteenth Amendment, Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co. [*164] v. Chicago, 166 U. S. 226, 239 (1897), provides that "private property” shall not "be taken for public use, without just…