Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Patrick Fisher Clerk Elisabeth A. Shumaker Chief Deputy Clerk
Patrick Fisher Clerk Elisabeth A. Shumaker Chief Deputy Clerk
Patrick Fisher Clerk Elisabeth A. Shumaker Chief Deputy Clerk
Tenth Circuit
Byron White United States Courthouse
1823 Stout Street
Denver, Colorado 80294
(303) 844-3157
Patrick Fisher
Clerk
Elisabeth A. Shumaker
Chief Deputy Clerk
TO:
RE:
PUBLISH
Filed 4/8/96
Plaintiffs-Appellants,,
No. 95-2033
Defendants-Appellees.
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO
Honorable Arthur L. Alarcon, Senior Circuit Judge for the United States Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, sitting by designation.
*
Reservation
Texaco,
Inc.
and
borders
Texas-New
but
within
Mexico
Navajo
Pipeline
Indian
Country.
(Appellants)
seek
Here, following
We affirm.
but
Reservation.
outside
the
formal
boundaries
of
the
Navajo
Texaco possesses several mineral leases within Navajo Indian Country while Texas-New
Mexico Pipeline owns and operates an interstate pipeline crossing Navajo Indian Country.
1
-4-
Zah
I,
we
First, Appellants
that
argument,
holding
whether
tribal
courts
have
We
determine
the
propriety
of
taxing
Appellants
activities
In response, we noted
-5-
furtherance of the congressional policy of supporting tribal selfgovernment; (2) promoting the orderly administration of justice;
and (3) obtaining the benefit of tribal expertise.
Id. at 1377-
Appellants
Third, they
jurisdiction.
We start from the premise that the scope of the district
courts jurisdiction was narrow following remand.
Cir.), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 897 (1981), Appellants contend, when
faced
with
motion
Pittsburgh & Midway Coal Mining Co. v. Watchman, 52 F.3d 1531 (10th
Cir. 1995), Appellants argue the district court was required to
allow further development of the facts to determine whether any of
-7-
the dispute occurred in Indian Country and the extent to which the
dispute lay within an independent Indian community.
These questions, however, were not within the scope of the
remand. The case was not postured as though the district court was
just
commencing
More
Watchman
required the
Id.
Id. at 1546.
imposition and enforcement of the Navajo Oil and Gas Severance Tax
and the Navajo Business Activities Tax on Plaintiffs activities
beyond the borders of the Navajo Reservation [is] illegal, invalid
and void.
We believe the circumstances of this case make Watchman
inapposite.
finding hearings when the operative fact issues have been resolved
through other means.
Appellants make no other challenge to the district courts
National Farmers analysis.
Exploration, Inc. v. Ladd, 902 F.2d 1496, 1499 (10th Cir. 1990).
Appellants contend the district court erred in assuming all of
their activities occurred within Indian Country.
Appellants argue
However, as discussed
concession
that
the
disputed
land
was
within
the
Even
had the scope of the remand allowed the district court to consider
this issue, it was entitled to rely upon Appellants concession,
and they are now without a basis for objection.
Appellants also assert the district court erred in assuming
Appellants entered contractual relationships with the Tribe and
acknowledged the authority of Navajo Law and its application to
the extraction activities.
Nevertheless,
the district
power.
did not include Texaco, the business dealings of both Texaco and
Texas-New Mexico Pipeline with the Tribe, including mineral leases
with individual Navajo allotment owners, were sufficient to subject
Texaco to the jurisdiction of the Navajo Nation as well.
After viewing the record as a whole, we conclude
there is
factual support for the trial courts findings on both issues. The
district court did not clearly err.
AFFIRMED.
- 11 -