Open main menu
Home
Random
Recent changes
Special pages
Community portal
Preferences
About Wikipedia
Disclaimers
Incubator escapee wiki
Search
User menu
Talk
Dark mode
Contributions
Create account
Log in
Editing
Nonintercourse Act
(section)
Warning:
You are not logged in. Your IP address will be publicly visible if you make any edits. If you
log in
or
create an account
, your edits will be attributed to your username, along with other benefits.
Anti-spam check. Do
not
fill this in!
====Laches==== Four dissenting justices would have barred the tribes action based on ''[[Laches (equity)|laches]]'' in ''[[Oneida County v. Oneida Indian Nation of N.Y. State]]'' (1985), a question the majority did not reach.<ref name="oneidaII"/> The Second Circuit adopted the view of the dissent in ''[[Cayuga Indian Nation of N.Y. v. Pataki]]'' (2d Cir. 2005), and since then no tribal plaintiff has been able to overcome this affirmative defense in that circuit.<ref>''Oneida Indian Nation of N.Y. v. County of Oneida'', 617 F.3d 114 (2d Cir. 2010); ''[[Cayuga Indian Nation of N.Y. v. Pataki]]'', 413 F.3d 266 (2d Cir. 2005); ''Onondaga Nation v. New York'', 2010 WL 3806492 (N.D.N.Y. 2010); ''Shinnecock Indian Nation v. New York'', 2006 WL 3501099 (E.D.N.Y. 2006); see also Kathryn E. Fort, The New Laches: Creating Title where None Existed, 16 Geo. Mason L. Rev. 357 (2009); Patrick W. Wandres, Indian Land Claims, ''Sherrill'' and the Impending Legacy of the Doctrine of Laches, 31 Am. Indian L. Rev. 131 (2006).</ref> ''Cayuga'' erased a damage award of $247.9 million, the largest ever awarded under the Act.
Edit summary
(Briefly describe your changes)
By publishing changes, you agree to the
Terms of Use
, and you irrevocably agree to release your contribution under the
CC BY-SA 4.0 License
and the
GFDL
. You agree that a hyperlink or URL is sufficient attribution under the Creative Commons license.
Cancel
Editing help
(opens in new window)