- Legal News Updates
- Law Center
- Legal Business
- Court News Center
- Law Firm News
- Legal Interviews
- Headline News
- Political and Legal
- Practice Focuses
- Legal Spotlight
- Events & Seminars
- Legal Marketing
- Court Watch
- Immigration Law
- Media Center
- Justice Stories
- Court: Man can't be retried for murder after mistrial ruling
- Michigan Democrats back Nessel for state attorney general
- Question of sales tax on online purchases goes to high court
- Supreme Court again refuses to hear Blagojevich appeal
- Court hears case alleging unconstitutional 6th District gerrymander
- Maryland redistricting case comes before Supreme Court
- Courts weighing numerous challenges to political boundaries
- Arkansas wants court to dissolve stay for death row prisoner
- TransCanada doesn't have to pay landowner attorneys
- Martin Shkreli cries in court, is sentenced to 7 years for securities fraud
My conclusions, after attempting to apply a suitably adjusted set of equitable principles to the facts of this case, are that plaintiffs have properly asserted a claim for restitution; that this Court has both the jurisdiction and the power to adjudicate that claim; and that the evidence supports an award in the amount of $455,600,000, a number that is within the range of the government's own admitted "uncertainty" about the amount necessary to restore the proper balance to the IIM trust. I have rejected the plaintiffs' claim of entitlement to an additional sum representing "benefit to the government."
Robertson said in April that he would set a dollar figure on the US government's alleged mismanagement when the case went to trial in June. A judge will decide how to restore and distribute the missing money at a future hearing.
Congress established the Indian trust in 1887 to hold proceeds from government-arranged leases of Indian lands. In an incendiary opinion in 2005, District Court Judge Royce Lamberth required the Interior Department to apologize to the plaintiffs for its handling of the trust, and to admit that information being provided to them regarding outstanding lost royalties on earnings from Indian land may be unreliable. In 2006, the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit removed Lamberth and reassigned the case to Robertson. In March 2007, the plaintiffs rejected a $7 billion settlement proposal from the US government. In January, Robertson ruled that the DOI "unreasonably delayed" the accounting of billions of dollars of American Indian money, holding that it was impossible for the Interior Department or for Congress to remedy the breach.
Legal News Media
Legal News Organization press is the top headline legal news provider for lawyers and legalprofessionals. Read law articles and breaking news from law firm's across the United States to get the latest updates. The content contained on the web site has been prepared by Legal News Media as a service to the internet
community and is not intended to constitute legal advice or a substitute for consultation with a licensed legal professional in a particular case or circumstance.