High court sides with Crow tribe member in hunting dispute

Law Journals

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

  • Loughlin, Huffman due in court in college admissions scam

    Loughlin, Huffman due in court in college admissions scam

    Law Journals 04/01/2019

    Actresses Lori Loughlin and Felicity Huffman faced court appearances Wednesday on charges they took part in the college bribery scandal that has ensnared dozens of wealthy parents.The actresses along with Loughlin’s fashion designer husband, Mo...

  • Supreme Court tosses $315 million award in USS Cole lawsuit

    Supreme Court tosses $315 million award in USS Cole lawsuit

    Law Journals 03/22/2019

    The Supreme Court on Tuesday threw out a nearly $315 million judgment against Sudan stemming from the USS Cole bombing, saying Sudan hadn't properly been notified of the lawsuit.The justices ruled 8-1 that notice of the lawsuit should have been maile...

  • High court questions courts’ role in partisan redistricting

    High court questions courts’ role in partisan redistricting

    Law Journals 03/22/2019

    The Supreme Court’s conservative majority sounded wary Tuesday of allowing federal judges to determine when electoral maps are too partisan, despite strong evidence that the political parties drew districts to guarantee congressional election o...

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.