JONES, CHAIRMAN OF NAVAJO TRIBAL COUNCIL v. HEALING, 373 U.S. 758 (1963)
Subscribe to Cases that cite CHAIRMAN OF NAVAJO TRIBAL COUNCIL v. HEALING, 373 U.S. 758
Case Resources
Search this Case
in Google Scholar
on the Web
Google Web Search
MSN Web Search
Yahoo! Web Search
in the News
Google News Search
Google News Archive Search
Yahoo! News Search
in the Blogs
BlawgSearch.com Search
Google Blog Search
Technorati Blog Search
in other Databases
Google Book Search
Online Research Resources
Cornell LII
Cornell Wex Dictionary & Encyclopedia
LLRX.com - Legal Research
Expert Witness Directory
Nolo Consumer & Business
US Court Forms
USA Constitution Annotated
WashLaw Directory
World LII
Online Case Law
Cornell LII
FastCase $
Lexis $
LexisOne
Loislaw $
USSCPlus.com $
VersusLaw $
Link to the Case Preview: http://supreme.justia.com/us/373/758/
Link to the Full Text of Case: http://supreme.justia.com/us/373/758/case.html
U.S. Supreme Court
JONES, CHAIRMAN OF NAVAJO TRIBAL COUNCIL v. HEALING, 373 U.S. 758 (1963)
373 U.S. 758JONES, CHAIRMAN OF NAVAJO TRIBAL COUNCIL OF NAVAJO INDIAN TRIBE, v. HEALING,
CHAIRMAN OF HOPI COUNCIL OF HOPI INDIAN TRIBE, ET AL.
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA. No. 985.
Decided June 3, 1963.*
[Footnote *] Together with No. 1050, Healing, Chairman of Hopi Tribal Council of Hopi Indian Tribe, et al. v. Jones, Chairman of Navajo Tribal Council of Navajo Indian Tribe, et al., on appeal from the same Court.
210 F. Supp. 125, affirmed.
Norman M. Littell and Frederick Bernays Wiener for appellant in No. 985 and for appellee Jones in No. 1050.
John S. Boyden, Allen H. Tibbals and Bryant H. Croft for appellants in No. 1050 and for appellee Healing in No. 985.
PER CURIAM.
The motion to substitute Raymond Nakai in the place of Paul Jones as the party appellant in No. 985 and as a party appellee in No. 1050 is granted. The motion to substitute Abbott Sekaquaptewa in the place of Dewey Healing as a party appellee in No. 985 and as a party appellant in No. 1050 is granted. The motion to affirm in No. 985 is granted and the judgment which is common to both cases is affirmed.
MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS is of the opinion that probable jurisdiction should be noted and would decide the cases only after argument.