Ex Parte Crow Dog
Significance, An Orderly Government, Impact, The Indian Civil Rights Act
Crow Dog of the Sioux Indian Nation
That the U.S. court system does not have jurisdiction over crimes committed within the boundaries of an Indian reservation by one tribal member against another.
Chief Lawyer for Petitioner
A. J. Plowman
Chief Lawyer for Respondent
Samuel F. Phillips, U.S. Solicitor General
Justices for the Court
Samuel Blatchford, Joseph P. Bradley, Stephen Johnson Field, Horace Gray, John Marshall Harlan I, Stanley Matthews (writing for the Court), Samuel Freeman Miller, Morrison Remick Waite, William Burnham Woods
Date of Decision
17 December 1883
Upheld Crow Dog's claim and overturned the lower court's decision sentencing him to death for a murder.
- Worcester v. Georgia, 6 Pet. (31 U.S.) 515 (1832).
- United States v. Kagama, 118 U.S. 375 (1886).
- Talton v. Mayes, 163 U.S. 376 (1896).
- Williams v. Lee, 358 U.S. 217 (1959).
- Oliphant v. Suquamish Indian Tribe, 435 U.S. 191 (1978).
- Duro v. Reina, 495 U.S. 676 (1990).
Bacon, Donald C., et al., eds. The Encyclopedia of the United States Congress. New York: Simon & Schuster, 1995.
- Harring, Sidney L. Crow Dog's Case: American Indian Sovereignty, Tribal Law, and United States Law in the Nineteenth Century. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press, 1994.
- Native American Rights Fund. http://www.narf.org.
- Wilkins, David E. American Indian Sovereignty and the U.S. Supreme Court: The Masking of Justice. Austin: University of Texas Press, 1997.
- Floyd Allen Trial: 1912 - Virginia Tries Floyd Allen For Murder
- Dr. Mary Amanda Dixon Jones Trials: 1890 1892 - Able Doctor Or "difficult Woman"?, The Manslaughter Case, The Libel Suit
- Ex Parte Crow Dog - Significance
- Ex Parte Crow Dog - An Orderly Government
- Ex Parte Crow Dog - Impact
- Ex Parte Crow Dog - The Indian Civil Rights Act
- Other Free Encyclopedias