High court sides with Crow tribe member in hunting dispute

Breaking Stories

The Supreme Court is siding with a member of the Crow tribe who was fined for hunting elk in Wyoming's Bighorn National Forest.

The Supreme Court on Monday sided with Clayvin Herrera. He argued that when his tribe gave up land in present-day Montana and Wyoming to the federal government in 1868, the tribe retained the right to hunt on the land.

The justices rejected Wyoming's argument that the Crow tribe's hunting rights ceased to exist after Wyoming became a state in 1890 or after Bighorn National Forest was established in 1897.

Herrera wound up with a fine of more than $8,000 after he posted photos online of his kill.

Related listings

  • News attorneys: Opioid distribution data should be public

    News attorneys: Opioid distribution data should be public

    Breaking Stories 05/03/2019

    Attorneys for news organizations argued Thursday that the U.S. public should be allowed to see federal data about how prescription opioids were distributed as the nation’s overdose crisis was worsening.They urged a three-judge panel of the 6th ...

  • Quest for food stamp data lands newspaper at Supreme Court

    Quest for food stamp data lands newspaper at Supreme Court

    Breaking Stories 04/20/2019

    In the summer of 2010, reporters at South Dakota’s Argus Leader newspaper decided to request data about the government’s food assistance program, previously known as food stamps. They thought the information could lead to a series of stor...

  • State's high court won't reconsider baby death case appeal

    State's high court won't reconsider baby death case appeal

    Breaking Stories 04/12/2019

    Ohio's Supreme Court has declined to reconsider an appeal by a former high school cheerleader charged with killing and burying her newborn baby.The court declined in February to hear Brooke Skylar Richardson's appeal after a lower court ruled doctors...

Grounds for Divorce in Ohio - Sylkatis Law, LLC

A divorce in Ohio is filed when there is typically “fault” by one of the parties and party not at “fault” seeks to end the marriage. A court in Ohio may grant a divorce for the following reasons:
• Willful absence of the adverse party for one year
• Adultery
• Extreme cruelty
• Fraudulent contract
• Any gross neglect of duty
• Habitual drunkenness
• Imprisonment in a correctional institution at the time of filing the complaint
• Procurement of a divorce outside this state by the other party

Additionally, there are two “no-fault” basis for which a court may grant a divorce:
• When the parties have, without interruption for one year, lived separate and apart without cohabitation
• Incompatibility, unless denied by either party

However, whether or not the the court grants the divorce for “fault” or not, in Ohio the party not at “fault” will not get a bigger slice of the marital property.

Business News

Santa Ana, CA Workers' Compensation Lawyers We are one of Orange County’s leading Workers’ Compensation firms. >> read
Pennsylvania Employment Law Firm Attorney Marc E. Weinstein advocates for the rights of employees and minorities. >> read