# Countyof Oneida v. Oneida Indian Nation of NY

> Supreme Court of the United States · April 22, 1985 · 470 U.S. 226

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9429924

## Case

- **Full name:** COUNTY OF ONEIDA, NEW YORK, Et Al. v. ONEIDA INDIAN NATION OF NEW YORK STATE Et Al.
- **Court:** Supreme Court of the United States
- **Decided:** April 22, 1985
- **Citations:** 470 U.S. 226; 105 S. Ct. 1245; 84 L. Ed. 2d 169; 1985 U.S. LEXIS 58
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Stevens
- **Judges:** Powell, Blackmun, O'Connor, Brennan, Marshall, Burger, White, Rehnquist, Stevens
- **Cited by:** 541 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9429924

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- 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 fede…
- 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”
- stating that Congress’ delegation to the President of certain matters involving Indian affairs was not a “textually demonstrable constitutional commitment,” but “rather a statutory commitment of authority” (internal quotation marks omitted)

## Opinion text

Justice Stevens
concurs in the judgment with respect to No. 83-1240.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9429924. Public record. Not legal advice.