263:
narrow one, and it may be useful to point out what we do not hold. We have no occasion to pass on portions of the court's instruction other than those discussed above. Even as to those portions we have considered, the issue we have decided, technically, is not whether those portions are correct as a matter of law, but whether they conform to the objecting party's view of the law. Finding they do, we see no remaining controversy. Because there are no sure yardsticks against which to measure the court's instructions, we cannot say that even those we considered are correct or the best possible, but we have not found any law conflicting with the portions of the charge we have reviewed.
28:
671:
355:, 2009 WL 1259963 (D. Mass. 2009), aff'd, 616 F.3d 1, 6 n.7 (1st Cir. 2010) ("We do not decide what effect the Department of the Interior's 2007 designation of the Mashpee Wampanoag as a federally recognized tribe has on opinions."); id. at 6 n.8 ("In April 2008, the tribe entered into an agreement with the Town in which it received certain Town lands in exchange for waiving all claims to property located within the Town.").
258:(1901): "By a ‘tribe’ we understand a body of Indians of the same or similar race, united in a community under one leadership or government, and inhabiting a particular though sometimes ill-defined territory . . . ." The court reviewed at length the supplemental instructions the trial court had given to clarify that definition. The First Circuit approved those instructions, with a rather substantial caveat:
297:
After the trial, a bus commuter notified the court that one juror had talked about his involvement in the case on the bus and mentioned a threatening phone call he had received. The district court, with counsel for both sides present, questioned the former jury about the incident and concluded that
236:
To that end, the court added the qualification that "once the
Department has finally approved its regulations and developed special expertise through applying them, we might arrive at a different answer." Additionally, the First Circuit found that the issues were suitable for in-court determination:
231:
The
Department of the Interior has not historically spent much effort deciding whether particular groups of people are Indian tribes. By and large no one has disputed the tribal status of Indians with whom the Department has dealt. The Department has never formally passed on the tribal status of the
279:
Second, the
Mashpee argued that 25 U.S.C. § 194 shifted the burden. That section provides: "In all trials about the right of property in which an Indian may be a party on one side, and a white person on the other, the burden of proof shall rest upon the white person, whenever the Indian shall make
275:
The district court had allocated the burden of proof to the plaintiff on all issues. The plaintiff's argued first that the district court should have at least shifted the burden to the defendants to prove that they had ceased to be a tribe for the periods after which the jury determined the tribe
194:
was established) and on March 3, 1843 (when the
District of Mashpee was partitioned) but were not a tribe on July 22, 1790 (the day the first Nonintercourse Act was passed), June 22, 1869 (the date on which the state law restraints on alienation were removed by the legislature), May 28, 1870 (the
262:
We conclude that though a few isolated sentences of the charge may have been unclear or overstated, the instructions taken as a whole were largely consistent with the position plaintiff argued before us. Therefore, we will not reverse on the basis of the court's instructions. This holding is a
226:
The First
Circuit rejected the idea that the district court should have waited for an agency determination, holding: "his is not the kind of case in which the Supreme Court has required courts to defer to administrative process." Much of the holding focuses on the historical inaction of the
241:
he facts in this case, though developed and interpreted in part with the expert help of historians and anthropologists, are not so technical as to be beyond the understanding of judges or juries. As the court said in its charge, 'We are dealing with the human condition here as
288:
The
Mashpee argued that the verdict was inconsistent because there was no way a tribe in existence in 1842 could have voluntarily ceased being a tribe by 1869. The First Circuit agreed that it was unlikely, but, drawing all inferences in favor of the verdict, not impossible.
206:
Before the First
Circuit, the Mashpee argued: (1) that the district court should have granted their motion for a continuance; (2) that the district court erred in instructing the jury on the definition of a "tribe"; (3) that the district court erred in allocating the
232:
Mashpees or, so far as the record shows, any other group whose status was disputed. Therefore, the
Department does not yet have prescribed procedures and has not been called on to develop special expertise in distinguishing tribes from other groups of Indians.
166:
The
Mashpee lands were sold in 1834 and 1870 without federal consent. The Mashpee claim implicated 11,000 acres, worth approximately $ 30,000,000 at the time of trial. The Mashpee's attempts to settle the claim were rebuffed.
251:
The First
Circuit noted that tribal status often goes unlitigated because federally recognized tribes are presumed to be tribes in the legal sense. Instead, the district court had relied upon the definition from
1107:
1052:
280:
out a presumption of title in himself from the fact of previous possession or ownership." The First Circuit held the statute had no application to the initial question of whether the plaintiff was a tribe.
616:
176:
894:
984:
139:
1087:
1059:
198:
The plaintiffs moved for a new trial on the basis that the special verdict was inconsistent. This motion was denied. All-in-all, the defendants paid $ 350,000 in legal bills.
937:
878:
134:
38:
859:
609:
548:
Jackie K. Kim, The Indian Federal Recognition Administrative Procedures Act of 1995: A Congressional Solution to an Administrative Morrass, 9 Admin. L.J. Am. U. 899 (1995).
640:
211:
to the Mashpee; (4) that the district court erred in not granting a new trial on the basis of the special verdict; and (5) that the district court erred in its handing of
1122:
267:
Judge Bownes, concurring, would have held the instruction correct as a matter of law, rather than merely consistent enough with the objecting party's view of the law.
179:
opted to hold separate trials, beginning with the issue of tribal status at the time of the suit and the time of the transactions. The Mashpee attempted to obtain a
832:
602:
902:
989:
660:
190:
were submitted to the jury on January 4, 1978. The verdict was returned on January 6, finding that the Mashpee were a tribe on March 3, 1834 (when the
969:
921:
298:
it had not affected the verdict enough to merit a new trial. The First Circuit held that the trial judge did not abuse his discretion by doing so.
1097:
1092:
1047:
1004:
759:
27:
625:
851:
959:
824:
788:
648:
805:
79:
427 F. Supp. 899 (D. Mass. 1977) (denying motion to dismiss); 447 F. Supp. 940 (D. Mass. 1978) (entering judgment for the defendant)
1112:
1117:
1102:
994:
964:
731:
979:
737:
146:
The Mashpee, as a tribe and individually, attempted to re-litigate the issue several times without success. In 2007, the
999:
183:
so that the Department of the Interior could determine their tribal status instead, but the court denied their motion.
670:
974:
776:
654:
151:
147:
886:
1040:
719:
175:
The Mashpee filed suit on August 16, 1976 against a defendant class of land owners in the town of Mashpee. The
725:
254:
1009:
187:
1064:
1030:
929:
212:
155:
191:
797:
208:
768:
685:
714:
697:
691:
533:
Restitution: The Land Claims of the Mashpee, Passamaquoddy, and Penobscot Indians of New England
126:
96:
1035:
1014:
92:
594:
100:
1081:
130:
709:
545:
Joe Carrillo, Identity as Idiom: Mashpee Reconsidered, 28 Ind. L. Rev. 511 (1995).
195:
date on which the town of Mashpee was incorporated), or when the suit was filed.
180:
133:
was not a "tribe" at several of the relevant dates for the litigation, and the
703:
137:
upheld that determination (the panel included two judges from the landmark
334:, 542 F. Supp. 797 (D. Mass. 1982), aff'd, 707 F.2d 23 (1st Cir. 1983).
227:
Department in developing a procedure for contested determinations:'
551:
James M. Kulikowski, Mashpee Revisited, 6 Am. Indian J. 18 (1980).
129:
to go to a jury. After a 40-day trial, the jury decided that the
186:
The trial began on October 17, 1977. After forty days of trial,
125:, 592 F.2d 575 (1st Cir. 1979), was the first litigation of the
598:
177:
United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts
218:
The First Circuit rejected all these arguments and affirmed.
1108:
United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit cases
895:
County of Oneida v. Oneida Indian Nation of New York State
140:
Joint Tribal Council of the Passamaquoddy Tribe v. Morton
938:
City of Sherrill v. Oneida Indian Nation of New York
879:
Oneida Indian Nation of New York v. County of Oneida
135:
United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit
39:
United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit
1023:
952:
913:
870:
860:
Federal Power Commission v. Tuscarora Indian Nation
843:
816:
787:
758:
751:
678:
639:
632:
554:Christopher Vecsey & William A. Starna (eds.),
106:
88:
83:
75:
70:
62:
54:
44:
34:
20:
574:by Precedent and Evidence: The Mashpee Indian Case
460:592 F.2d 594–95 (Bownes, J., concurring).
1088:Aboriginal title case law in the United States
833:United States v. Santa Fe Pacific Railroad Co.
154:to the Mashpee, and the tribe and the town of
610:
330:, 820 F.2d 480 (1st Cir. 1987) (Breyer, J.);
8:
661:Confederation Congress Proclamation of 1783
585:The Unilateral Termination of Tribal Status
755:
636:
617:
603:
595:
26:
17:
587:: Mashpee Tribe v. New Seabury Corp., 31
1123:Native American history of Massachusetts
694:(1790, 1793, 1796, 1799, 1802, and 1834)
1060:Federal recognition of Native Hawaiians
1048:Tribal sovereignty in the United States
470:
468:
466:
429:
427:
306:
903:South Carolina v. Catawba Indian Tribe
417:
415:
413:
394:
392:
390:
371:
369:
367:
365:
363:
361:
328:Mashpee Tribe v. Secretary of Interior
922:Idaho v. Coeur d'Alene Tribe of Idaho
626:Aboriginal title in the United States
474:592 F.2d 575, 588 (majority opinion).
314:
312:
310:
158:entered into a settlement agreement.
112:Coffin, joined by Campbell and Bownes
7:
852:Tee-Hit-Ton Indians v. United States
540:The Mashpee Indians: Tribe on Trial
1053:List of federally recognized tribes
825:Seneca Nation of Indians v. Christy
568:Gerald Torres & Kathryn Milun,
49:Mashpee Tribe v. New Seabury Corp.
649:Charter of Freedoms and Exemptions
122:Mashpee Tribe v. New Seabury Corp.
21:Mashpee Tribe v. New Seabury Corp.
14:
806:New York ex rel. Cutler v. Dibble
318:Vecsey & Starna, 1988, at 27.
669:
1098:1979 in United States case law
1093:Legal history of Massachusetts
732:Indian Land Claims Settlements
1:
738:Indian Claims Limitations Act
887:Wilson v. Omaha Indian Tribe
726:Indian Claims Commission Act
343:72 Fed. Reg. 8007-01 (2007).
66:592 F.2d 575 (1st Cir. 1979)
519:592 F.2d 575, 592–95.
510:592 F.2d 575, 590–92.
451:592 F.2d 575, 587–88.
442:592 F.2d 575, 582–87.
384:592 F.2d 575, 579–80.
284:Special verdict consistency
1139:
777:Cherokee Nation v. Georgia
655:Royal Proclamation of 1763
148:Department of the Interior
667:
111:
25:
353:Bingham v. Massachusetts
276:had carried its burden.
255:Montoya v. United States
1113:Mashpee Wampanoag Tribe
657:(British North America)
188:special interrogatories
1118:Mashpee, Massachusetts
1065:Legal status of Hawaii
1031:Indigenous land rights
930:Idaho v. United States
265:
244:
234:
213:ex parte communication
156:Mashpee, Massachusetts
1103:1979 in Massachusetts
798:Fellows v. Blacksmith
651:(1629 New Netherland)
407:Fromson, 2003, at 52.
332:Mashpee Tribe v. Watt
260:
247:Definition of "tribe"
239:
229:
556:Iroquois Land Claims
769:Johnson v. McIntosh
686:Northwest Ordinance
293:Juror communication
192:District of Mashpee
152:federal recognition
114:Bownes (concurring)
720:Reorganization Act
715:Curtis Act of 1898
692:Nonintercourse Act
501:592 F.2d 575, 590.
492:592 F.2d 575, 589.
433:592 F.2d 575, 582.
421:592 F.2d 575, 581.
398:592 F.2d 575, 580.
375:592 F.2d 575, 579.
127:Nonintercourse Act
1075:
1074:
948:
947:
747:
746:
118:
117:
97:Levin H. Campbell
1130:
1036:Aboriginal title
756:
673:
637:
619:
612:
605:
596:
590:
579:
520:
517:
511:
508:
502:
499:
493:
490:
484:
483:25 U.S.C. § 194.
481:
475:
472:
461:
458:
452:
449:
443:
440:
434:
431:
422:
419:
408:
405:
399:
396:
385:
382:
376:
373:
356:
350:
344:
341:
335:
325:
319:
316:
84:Court membership
30:
18:
1138:
1137:
1133:
1132:
1131:
1129:
1128:
1127:
1078:
1077:
1076:
1071:
1019:
944:
914:Rehnquist Court
909:
866:
839:
817:1890—1950
812:
783:
743:
674:
665:
628:
623:
588:
577:
565:
563:Further reading
528:
523:
518:
514:
509:
505:
500:
496:
491:
487:
482:
478:
473:
464:
459:
455:
450:
446:
441:
437:
432:
425:
420:
411:
406:
402:
397:
388:
383:
379:
374:
359:
351:
347:
342:
338:
326:
322:
317:
308:
304:
295:
286:
273:
271:Burden of proof
249:
224:
209:burden of proof
204:
173:
164:
143:(1975) panel).
113:
93:Frank M. Coffin
12:
11:
5:
1136:
1134:
1126:
1125:
1120:
1115:
1110:
1105:
1100:
1095:
1090:
1080:
1079:
1073:
1072:
1070:
1069:
1068:
1067:
1057:
1056:
1055:
1045:
1044:
1043:
1033:
1027:
1025:
1021:
1020:
1018:
1017:
1012:
1007:
1002:
997:
992:
987:
982:
977:
972:
967:
962:
956:
954:
950:
949:
946:
945:
943:
942:
934:
926:
917:
915:
911:
910:
908:
907:
899:
891:
883:
874:
872:
868:
867:
865:
864:
856:
847:
845:
841:
840:
838:
837:
829:
820:
818:
814:
813:
811:
810:
802:
793:
791:
785:
784:
782:
781:
773:
764:
762:
760:Marshall Court
753:
749:
748:
745:
744:
742:
741:
735:
729:
723:
717:
712:
707:
701:
695:
689:
682:
680:
676:
675:
668:
666:
664:
663:
658:
652:
645:
643:
634:
630:
629:
624:
622:
621:
614:
607:
599:
593:
592:
581:
564:
561:
560:
559:
552:
549:
546:
543:
538:Jack Campisi,
536:
531:Paul Brodeur,
527:
524:
522:
521:
512:
503:
494:
485:
476:
462:
453:
444:
435:
423:
409:
400:
386:
377:
357:
345:
336:
320:
305:
303:
300:
294:
291:
285:
282:
272:
269:
248:
245:
223:
220:
215:with a juror.
203:
200:
172:
169:
163:
160:
116:
115:
109:
108:
104:
103:
101:Hugh H. Bownes
90:
89:Judges sitting
86:
85:
81:
80:
77:
73:
72:
68:
67:
64:
60:
59:
56:
52:
51:
46:
45:Full case name
42:
41:
36:
32:
31:
23:
22:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1135:
1124:
1121:
1119:
1116:
1114:
1111:
1109:
1106:
1104:
1101:
1099:
1096:
1094:
1091:
1089:
1086:
1085:
1083:
1066:
1063:
1062:
1061:
1058:
1054:
1051:
1050:
1049:
1046:
1042:
1039:
1038:
1037:
1034:
1032:
1029:
1028:
1026:
1022:
1016:
1013:
1011:
1008:
1006:
1003:
1001:
998:
996:
993:
991:
988:
986:
983:
981:
978:
976:
973:
971:
968:
966:
963:
961:
958:
957:
955:
951:
940:
939:
935:
932:
931:
927:
924:
923:
919:
918:
916:
912:
905:
904:
900:
897:
896:
892:
889:
888:
884:
881:
880:
876:
875:
873:
869:
862:
861:
857:
854:
853:
849:
848:
846:
842:
835:
834:
830:
827:
826:
822:
821:
819:
815:
808:
807:
803:
800:
799:
795:
794:
792:
790:
786:
779:
778:
774:
771:
770:
766:
765:
763:
761:
757:
754:
750:
739:
736:
733:
730:
727:
724:
721:
718:
716:
713:
711:
708:
705:
702:
699:
696:
693:
690:
687:
684:
683:
681:
679:United States
677:
672:
662:
659:
656:
653:
650:
647:
646:
644:
642:
638:
635:
631:
627:
620:
615:
613:
608:
606:
601:
600:
597:
586:
582:
575:
571:
567:
566:
562:
557:
553:
550:
547:
544:
541:
537:
534:
530:
529:
525:
516:
513:
507:
504:
498:
495:
489:
486:
480:
477:
471:
469:
467:
463:
457:
454:
448:
445:
439:
436:
430:
428:
424:
418:
416:
414:
410:
404:
401:
395:
393:
391:
387:
381:
378:
372:
370:
368:
366:
364:
362:
358:
354:
349:
346:
340:
337:
333:
329:
324:
321:
315:
313:
311:
307:
301:
299:
292:
290:
283:
281:
277:
270:
268:
264:
259:
257:
256:
246:
243:
238:
233:
228:
221:
219:
216:
214:
210:
201:
199:
196:
193:
189:
184:
182:
178:
170:
168:
161:
159:
157:
153:
149:
144:
142:
141:
136:
132:
131:Mashpee Tribe
128:
124:
123:
110:
107:Case opinions
105:
102:
98:
94:
91:
87:
82:
78:
76:Prior actions
74:
69:
65:
61:
58:Feb. 13, 1979
57:
53:
50:
47:
43:
40:
37:
33:
29:
24:
19:
16:
1041:in Australia
1010:Rhode Island
936:
928:
920:
901:
893:
885:
877:
871:Burger Court
858:
850:
844:Warren Court
831:
823:
804:
796:
775:
767:
710:Diminishment
641:Colonial era
584:
573:
569:
555:
539:
532:
515:
506:
497:
488:
479:
456:
447:
438:
403:
380:
352:
348:
339:
331:
327:
323:
296:
287:
278:
274:
266:
261:
253:
250:
240:
235:
230:
225:
217:
205:
197:
185:
174:
165:
145:
138:
121:
120:
119:
71:Case history
48:
15:
789:Taney Court
734:(1978–2006)
698:Removal Act
591:153 (1979).
589:Me. L. Rev.
570:Translating
222:Continuance
181:continuance
1082:Categories
995:New Mexico
965:California
752:Precedents
572:Yonnondio
526:References
162:Background
980:Louisiana
704:Dawes Act
578:Duke L.J.
1005:Oklahoma
1000:New York
990:Michigan
953:By state
633:Statutes
150:granted
63:Citation
1024:Compare
1015:Vermont
975:Indiana
576:, 1990
558:(1988).
542:(1991).
535:(1985).
242:well.'"
202:Opinion
55:Decided
970:Hawaii
960:Alaska
941:(2005)
933:(2001)
925:(1997)
906:(1986)
898:(1985)
890:(1979)
882:(1974)
863:(1960)
855:(1955)
836:(1941)
828:(1896)
809:(1858)
801:(1857)
780:(1831)
772:(1823)
740:(1982)
728:(1946)
722:(1934)
706:(1887)
700:(1830)
688:(1787)
583:Note,
985:Maine
302:Notes
171:Trial
35:Court
580:625.
1084::
465:^
426:^
412:^
389:^
360:^
309:^
99:,
95:,
618:e
611:t
604:v
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
