Wolfchild v. Redwood County, No. 15-1580 (8th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this CaseAppellants filed a class action claiming the right to title and possession of twelve square miles of land in southern Minnesota. Appellants allege that they are lineal descendants of the Mdewakanton band of the Sioux tribe who were loyal to the United States during the 1862 uprising, and that the Secretary of the Interior set apart the twelve square miles for the loyal Mdewakanton and their descendants. The court concluded that the district court correctly held that appellants failed to state a claim under federal common law as set forth in the progeny of Oneida Indian Nation v. County of Oneida; the district court properly granted defendants' motions to dismiss on the ground that Section 9 of the Act of February 16, 1863, Act of Feb. 16, 1863, ch. 37, 9, 12 Stat. 652, 654, does not provide a private remedy to the loyal Mdewakanton; the district court abused its discretion when it imposed sanctions, and the claims regarding the appellate-cost bond are moot; and, because the district court made no findings regarding the propriety of the Municipal Appelllees' motion for costs, the motion was moot. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's grant of appellees' motion to dismiss; vacated the order imposing sanctions and requiring an appellate-cost bond; and remanded for limited consideration of Municipal Appellees’ motion for costs Under Rule 54(d) and 28 U.S.C. 1920.
Court Description: Bright, Author, with Wollman and Loken, Circuit Judges] Civil case -Indian law. The long and complicate history of this case and plaintiffs' attempt to claim title to twelve square miles of land in South Minnesota is set out in Wolfchild v. United States, 731 F.3d 1280 (Fed. Circ. 2013), cert. denied, 134 S.Ct 1516 (2014). The district court did not err in finding plaintiffs failed to state a claim under the federal common law as set out in Oneida Indian Nation v. County of Oneida, 414 U.S. 661 (1974) and its progeny; the Act of February 16, 1863 does not create a private right of action to members or descendants of the loyal Mdewakanton Sioux; the district court erred in imposing sanctions against the plaintiffs as they set made good-faith, non-frivolous arguments distinguishing, calling for modifications or extensions of existing law; remanded for a determination of whether defendants are entitled to costs under Rule 54(d) and 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1920.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.