Countyof Oneida v. Oneida Indian Nation of NY

How later courts described this case

• recognizing that a state statute of limitations may apply to a federal claim which is analogous to a state cause of action if no express federal statute of limitations governs the federal claim and the state statute of limitations would not be inconsistent with underlying federal policies
• finding that “[t]he indemnification claim here, whether cast as a question of New York law or federal common law, is a claim against the State for retroactive monetary relief,” and was thus barred by the Eleventh Amendment in the absence of the State’s consent to suit
• recognizing that “Indian nations held aboriginal title to lands they had inhabited from time immemorial” subject to the doctrine of discovery, which provides that “discovering nations held fee title to these lands, subject to the Indians’ right of occupancy and use.”
• holding that the Nonintercourse Act of 1793 did not displace the Oneidas’ federal common law right to sue to enforce their aboriginal land rights because the Act did “not speak directly to the question of remedies for unlawful conveyances of Indian land”

Written by the judges who cited it.