About the Collection

David Harding Getches (Aug. 17, 1942 – July 5, 2011) joined the University of Colorado Law School faculty in 1979. A renowned scholar in the fields of natural resources, water, and American Indian law, Getches served as Dean and Raphael J. Moses Professor of Natural Resources Law from July, 2003 – June, 2011. The David H. Getches Collection at the William A. Wise Law Library is dedicated to preserving and sharing Dean Getches’ tremendous legal and educational legacy, as reflected in his scholarship, academic speeches, congressional testimony, and litigation.




      Bibliography

What's New in Legal Education: Experiential Learning (PDF)
Getches announces Colorado Law's new Schaden Chair in Experiential Learning and explores how the law school is "refining its approach to teaching practical and professional skills" and encouraging integration of experiential techniques in doctrinal courses.

An Introduction to the Deans' Diversity Council (PDF)
Co-authored by Deans David H. Getches (CU Law) and José Roberto (Beto) Juárez, Jr. (DU Law). Article published in the July, 2007 issue of The Colorado Lawyer.

Professor Homer Clark: 'Just do it!' (PDF)
Tribute to Professor Homer H. Clark, Jr. Article published in the Winter, 2007 issue of the University of Colorado Law Review.

University of Colorado School of Law Makes History in Higher Education (PDF)
Article published in the September, 2006 issue of The Colorado Lawyer to coincide with the completion and dedication of the new Wolf Law Building at CU.

Indigenous peoples' rights to water under international norms (PDF)
In this 2005 article Dean Getches "examines the nature of international law as it relates to indigenous water rights and evaluates the kinds of claims that native peoples might assert when they are deprived of access to water."

The Legacy of the Bush II Administration in Natural Resources: A Work in Progress (PDF)
Article published in the August, 2005 issue of Ecology Law Quarterly.

Water Wrongs: Why Can’t We Get It Right the First Time? - Rocky Mountain Mineral Law Foundation Journal (PDF)
Article reprinted in the Rocky Mountain Mineral Law Foundation Journal, Vol. 42, No. 2 (2005). Originally published in the Winter, 2004 issue of Environmental Law.

Water Wrongs: Why Can’t We Get It Right the First Time? - Environmental Law (PDF)
Article published in the Winter, 2004 issue of Environmental Law.

A Tradition of Scholarship in Natural Resources Law (PDF)
Introduction to the Natural Resources Issue of the University of Colorado Law Review, Vol. 75, No. 2 (Winter 2004).

Water Management in the United States and the Fate of the Colorado River Delta in Mexico (PDF)
Article published in the Spring, 2003 issue of the United States-Mexico Law Journal.

Beyond Indian Law: The Rehnquist Court's Pursuit of States' Rights, Color-Blind Justice, and Mainstream Values (PDF)
Article published in the December, 2001 issue of the Minnesota Law Review.

The Unsettling of the West: How Indians Got the Best Water Rights (PDF)
Michigan Law Review essay published in May, 2001 reviewing John Shurts' 2000 book, Indian Reserved Water Rights: The Winters Doctrine in its Social and Legal Context, 1880s-1930s.

La Gouvernance de Bassin-Versant: Des Limites Naturelles pour des Décisions Relatives aux Ressources Naturelles (PDF)
Article written in French and published in a 1999 issue of Espaces et Sociétés journal.

Dedication to Professor Ralph W. Johnson (PDF)
Dedication to University of Washington law professor Ralph W. Johnson published in the October, 1997 issue of the Washington Law Review.

Colorado River Governance: Sharing Federal Authority as an Incentive to Create a New Institution (PDF)
Article published in the Summer, 1997 issue of the University of Colorado Law Review.

Law [Natural Resources Defense Council] (PDF)
Article published in the Winter, 1996 issue of the Amicus Journal.

American Indian Law Deskbook: Conference of Western Attorneys General - Book Review (PDF)
Book review published in the Summer, 1994 issue of the Western Historical Quarterly.

Changing the River’s Course: Western Water Policy Reform (PDF)
"Professor Getches concludes that traditional instruments of water policy in the West--the beneficial use requirement of the prior appropriation doctrine, the water projects that harnessed the river in the first place, and the historically unfulfilled ideal of watershed management--can be reformed and redirected to address many of the problems the river has suffered."

Negotiated Sovereignty: Intergovernmental Agreements with American Indian Tribes as Models for Expanding Self-Government (PDF)
"This paper illustrates the American experience with negotiated intergovernmental agreements between tribes and individual states..The author suggests that these intergovernmental agreements in the United States provide a useful model to resolve lingering issues, effect practical solutions and expand First Nations self-government in Canada."

From Askhabad, to Wellton-Mohawk, to Los Angeles: The Drought in Water Policy (PDF)
Article published in the Spring, 1993 issue of the University of Colorado Law Review.

Foreword: The Challenge of Rio (PDF)
Article is the Foreword to the Winter, 1993 issue of the Colorado Journal of International Environmental Law and Policy.

Water Reform: Ideas Whose Time Has Come (PDF)
Article published in the Winter, 1993 issue of Water Resources Update.

A Philosophy of Permanence: The Indians' Legacy for the West (PDF)
Article published in the July, 1990 issue of the Journal of the West.

Dedication: Professor Albert E. Utton (PDF)
Dedication to University of New Mexico law professor Albert E. Utton published in the Winter, 1990 issue of the Colorado Journal of International Environmental Law and Policy.

Groundwater Quality Protection: Setting a National Goal for State and Federal Programs - Land Use & Environmental Law Review (PDF)
Article reprinted in the Land Use & Environment Law Review, Vol. 22 (1991). Originally published in the Spring, 1989 issue of the Chicago-Kent Law Review.

Groundwater Quality Protection: Setting a National Goal for State and Federal Programs - Chicago-Kent Law Review (PDF)
Article published in the Spring, 1989 issue of the Chicago-Kent Law Review.

Foreword: Focus: Clean Water Act's Section 404 (PDF)
Article is the Foreword to the Vol. 60, no. 4 (1989) issue of the University of Colorado Law Review.

Management and Marketing of Indian Water: From Conflict to Pragmatism (PDF)
Article published in the Winter, 1988 issue of the University of Colorado Law Review.

Water Planning: Untapped Opportunity for the Western States (PDF)
Article published in the Winter, 1988 issue of the Journal of Energy Law and Policy.

Water Use Efficiency: The Value of Water in the West (PDF)
Article published in The Public Land Law Review, Vol. 8 (1987).

Competing Demands for the Colorado River (PDF)
Article published in the Spring, 1985 issue of the University of Colorado Law Review.

Controlling Groundwater Use and Quality: A Fragmented System (PDF)
Article published in the Winter, 1985 issue of the Natural Resources Lawyer.

Preface: On Natural Resources as an Area of the Law - Public Land and Resources Law Digest (PDF)
Article reprinted in the Public Land and Resources Law Digest, Vol. 19, No. 2 (1982). Originally published as the Preface to the Winter, 1982 issue of the University of Colorado Law Review.

Preface: On Natural Resources as an Area of the Law - University of Colorado Law Review (PDF)
Article is the Preface to the Winter, 1982 issue of the University of Colorado Law Review.

Water Rights on Indian Allotments - Public Land and Resources Law Digest (PDF)
Article reprinted in the Public Land and Resources Law Digest, Vol. 19, No. 1 (1982). Originally published in the Summer, 1981 issue of the South Dakota Law Review.

Water Rights on Indian Allotments - South Dakota Review (PDF)
"This article attempts to define those water rights by examining the allotment policy and legislation in light of the reserved water rights doctrine. The author concludes that no reserved rights may be held by individuals, but that during the period of trust some of those rights may be used by allottees."

North Slope Borough, Oil, and the Future of Local Government in Alaska (PDF)
Article published in the Fall, 1973 issue of the UCLA-Alaska Law Review.

Lawyers and Indians (PDF)
"In this article he describes some of the problems peculiar to Indian law and stresses the need for recognition of the Indian lawyer as an independent specialist." Published in the February, 1972 issue of The Colorado Lawyer.

Uncommon Controversy: Fishing Rights of the Muckleshoot, Puyallup, and Nisqually Indians: A Report Prepared for the American Friends Service Committee [1970] (PDF)
Book review published in the Maine Law Review, Vol. 23, No.1 (1971).

The Ex-Convict's Right to Vote (PDF)
Unsigned student note published in the Southern California Law Review, Vol. 40, No. 1 (1967).


Brief of Amici Curiae Natural Res. and Indian Law Professors in Support of Private Appellees and Affirmance, John v. United States, 247 F.2d 1032 (9th Cir. 2001) (No. 00-35121) (PDF)
Addresses issue raised by State of Alaska as to whether the Secretary of the Interior has specific authority to adopt a comprehensive scheme for fish and wildlife management on "public lands" as defined in Section 102 of the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA).

City of Williams v. Dombeck, 151 F. Supp. 2d 9 (D.D.C. 2001) (David H. Getches, Boulder, CO, for Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., National Parks and Conservation Association, and The Grand Canyon Trust, and Harry Rubenstein Sachse, Sonosky, Chambers, Sachse & Endreson, Washington, DC, for Havasupai Tribe and The Hopi Tribe, movants) (PDF)
Case summary: The District Court granted in part and denied in part plaintiffs' claims against the United States Forest Services' decisions to approve land exchanges near the Grand Canyon. Plaintiffs' claims allege violations of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) and the Federal Land Policy and Exchange Management Act (FLPMA). The court dismissed plaintiff's claims in violation of FLPMA as unripe because the Forest Service's decision to exchange land is dependent on title transfer and rezoning, neither of which have occurred or are imminent. The Court granted defendants summary judgment as to violation of NEPA stipulated in counts IV, V, and VII of plaintiffs' complaint and granted plaintiffs summary judgment as to violation of NEPA stipulated in count III of its complaint.

City of Williams v. Dombeck, 203 F.R.D. 10 (D.D.C. 2001) (David H. Getches, Boulder, CO, for Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., National Parks and Conservation Association, and The Grand Canyon Trust, and Harry Rubenstein Sachse, Sonosky, Chambers, Sachse & Endreson, Washington, DC, for Havasupai Tribe and The Hopi Tribe, movants) (PDF)
Case summary: The United States District Court for the District of Columbia denied plaintiffs' motion to amend its complaint against the United States Forest Service alleging violations of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) and the Federal Land Policy and Exchange Management Act (FLPMA). The Court found plaintiffs' proposed amendments to the complaint were not warranted and would unduly prejudice the defendants because of the untimeliness of the amendments and the addition of tangentially related claims.

Hotel Employees & Rest. Employees Int'l Union v. Davis, 21 Cal. 4th 585, 88 Cal. Rptr. 2d 56, 981 P.2d 990 (1999) (Carole E. Goldberg, Los Angeles, for Indian Law Professors Jo Carrillo, Reid Chambers, Robert N. Clinton, Richard B. Collins, Arturo Gandara, Gerald Gardner, David Getches, Raleigh Levine, Nell Newton, Monroe Price, Rennard Strikland and Charles F. Wilkinson as Amici Curiae on behalf of Real Parties in Interest) (PDF)
Case summary: The Supreme Court of California issued a peremptory writ of mandate prohibiting the Governor and the Secretary of the State of California from implementing Proposition 5, an initiative that would add a section to the government code detailing tribal-state compacts for gaming and gambling in the state. The Court held all but the last sentence of Proposition 5 was invalid because it was inconsistent with the anti-casino provision of California's Constitution.

Brief of Amici Curiae Indian Law Professors in Support of Affirmance, Alaska v. Native Vill. of Venetie Tribal Gov't, 522 U.S. 520 (1998) (No. 96-1577), (Richard B. Collins, David H. Getches, Charles F. Wilkinson, Robert N. Clinton, Carole E. Goldberg, Ralph W. Johnson, Monroe E. Price, and Rennard Strickland) (PDF)
In 1943, the Secretary of the Interior set aside a 1.8 million acre reservation in Alaska (less than one-half of one percent of the State's land area) to protect the hunting grounds of the Natives of Venetie and Arctic Villages ("Venetie Reservation"). Unlike almost all other Native villages in Alaska, the Natives of Venetie and Arctic Villages elected under section 19(b) of the 1971 Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act, 43 U.S.C. Sec. 1601, 1618(b) ("ANCSA") to acquire title to their existing reservation and thereby to forgo any other land or economic benefits under the Act. The question presented is: Whether the Ninth Circuit correctly held, based on the complete absence of language in ANCSA extinguishing Indian country in Alaska, that the Native Village of Venetie Tribal Government (which represents both Venetie and Arctic Village) occupies Indian country and retains its inherent authority to tax business activities occurring within its territory in order to provide essential government services in an area not served by any other local government.

In re Application for Water Rights of Bd. of Cnty. Comm'rs of Cnty. of Arapahoe, 891 P.2d 952 (Colo. 1995) (David H. Getches, Roger Flynn, Bruce C. Driver, Boulder, for objectorappellees/cross-appellants Colorado Wildlife Federation, Gunnison Angling Soc., High Country Citizens' Alliance, and Western Colorado Congress) (PDF)
Case summary: Supreme Court of Colorado held the National Energy Resources Company (NECO) did not form the requisite intent to appropriate water prior to applying for conditional water right decree, thus making the water right application that was subsequently purchased by the Board of County Commissioners for Arapahoe County speculative. The Supreme Court also held the trial court was not required to consider environmental factors in determining whether Arapahoe County proved the water would be put to good use.

Answer Brief of Appellee and Cross-Appellant Rainbow Services, Inc., In re Application for Water Rights of Bd. of Cnty Comm'rs of the Cnty. of Arapahoe, 891 P.2d 952 (Colo. 1995) (No. 92SA68), 1994 WL 16058657(Bruce C. Driver, counsel for Appellee/Cross-Appellant, Rainbow Services, Inc.; Of counsel: David H. Getches) (PDF)
Respectfully submitted this 7th day of January, 1994, Bruce C. Driver, David H. Getches, Roger Flynn.

Reply Brief of Cross-Appellants High Country Citizens' Alliance, et al., In re Application for Water Rights of Bd. of Cnty Comm'rs of the Cnty. of Arapahoe, 891 P.2d 952 (Colo. 1995) (No. 92SA68), 1994 WL 16058650 (David H. Getches and Bruce C. Driver, attorneys for High Country Citizens' Alliance, Gunnison Angling Society, Western Colorado Congress, and Colorado Wildlife Federation; Roger Flynn, of counsel; Thomas Lustig, attorney for National Wildlife Federation) (PDF)

Opening Brief of Appellees and Cross-Appellants High Country Citizens' Alliance, et al., In re Application for Water Rights of Bd. of Cnty Comm'rs of the Cnty. of Arapahoe, 891 P.2d 952 (Colo. 1995) (No. 92SA68), 1994 WL 16058656 (David H. Getches and Roger Flynn, Boulder, Colo., attorneys for High Country Citizens' Alliance, Gunnison Angling Society, Western Colorado Congress, and Colorado Wildlife Federation; Bruce C. Driver; Thomas Lustig, attorney for National Wildlife Federation) (PDF)

Motion for Leave to File Brief as Amici Curiae and Brief for Amici Curiae Envtl. Defense Fund and Sierra Club, United States v. Alpine Land & Reservoir Co., 697 F.2d 851 (9th Cir. 1983) (Nos. 81-4084, 81-4116) (Charles F. Wilkinson, School of Law, University of Oregon; Of counsel: Frederick R. Anderson, College of Law, University of Utah; Robert Emmet Clark, College of Law, University of Arizona; Harrison C. Dunning, School of Law, University of California-Davis; David H. Getches, School of Law, University of Colorado; Ralph W. Johnson, School of Law, University of Washington; John D. Leshy, College of Law, Arizona State University; and A. Dan Tarlock, Illinois Institute of Technology, Chicago-Kent College of Law) (PDF)
Case summary: Court denies tribe's motion to intervene in action by the government to quiet title to rights to water for a federal reclamation project, and court later holds that water rights of federal reclamation project are not limited by virtue of state law or contracts between Secretary of Interior and project water users.

Brief of Amici Curiae Sierra Club and Friends of the Earth, Nevada v. United States, 463 U.S. 110 (1983) (Nos. 81-2245, 81-2276, 82-38) (Frederick R. Anderson, College of Law, University of Utah; Robert Emmet Clark, Professor Emeritus, College of Law, University of Arizona; James N. Corbridge, Jr. and David H. Getches, School of Law, University of Colorado; Harrison C. Dunning, School of Law, University of California-Davis; Ralph W. Johnson, School of Law, University of Washington; Charles F. Wilkinson (Counsel of Record) and Chapin D. Clark, University of Oregon School of Law; John D. Leshy, College of Law, Arizona State University; Peter C. Maxfield, College of Law, University of Wyoming; Joseph L. Sax, Law School, University of Michigan; A. Dan Tarlock, Illinois Institute of Technology, Chicago-Kent College of Law) Petition for Rehearing, United States v. Alpine Land & Reservoir Co., 431 F.2d 763 (9th Cir. 1970) (No. 24156) (Robert D. Stitser, Ltd.; Robert S. Pelcyger, David H. Getches, and Daniel M. Rosenfelt, Native American Rights Fund) (PDF)
Case summary: The U.S. Supreme Court rules that res judicata bars the United States and the Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe from seeking water rights to the Truckee River to preserve Pyramid Lake and its fish populations.

Sequoyah v. Tenn. Valley Auth., 620 F.2d 1159 (6th Cir. 1980) (David H. Getches, University of Colorado, School of Law, Boulder, Colo., Bertram E. Hirsch, Bellerose, N. Y., Jon Van Dyke, Native Hawaiian Legal Corp., Honolulu, Hawaii, for amici curiae) (PDF)
Case summary: Indians' suit to prevent flooding of sacred sites by Tellico Dam is dismissed because of failure to prove centrality or indispensability of Little Tennessee River Valley to Cherokee religion.

Motion of the Am. Civil Liberties Union, the Am. Civil Liberties Union of Wash., and the Nat'l Cong. of Am. Indians for Leave to File Brief Amici Curiae [and Brief Amici Curiae], Washington v. Wash. State Commercial Passenger Fishing Vessel Ass'n, 443 U.S. 658 (1979) (Nos. 77-983, 78-119, 78-139) (Charles S. Sims and Bruce J. Ennis, c/o American Civil Liberties Union Foundation; David H. Getches, University of Colorado, School of Law; Of counsel, Burt Neuborne, Stephen L. Pevar, and George Kannar) (PDF)

Brief of Amicus Curiae Nat'l Am. Indian Ct. Judges Ass'n, Oliphant v. Suquamish Indian Tribe, 435 U.S. 191 (1978) (No. 76-5729) (David H. Getches of Getches & Greene and Ralph W. Johnson, School of Law, University of Washington) (PDF)
Case summary: The US Supreme Court decision stated that Indian tribal courts do not have inherent criminal jurisdiction to try and to punish non-Indians for offenses committed on their reservations, and hence may not assume such jurisdiction unless specifically authorized to do so by treaty or statute.

Brief of Respondent Indian Tribes in Opposition to Petitions for Writs of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, Washington v. United States and Northwest Steelheaders Council of Trout Unlimited v. United States, cert. denied, 423 U.S. 1086 (1976) (Nos. 75-588, 75-592) (David H. Getches, Native American Rights Fund; Charles A. Hobbs, Wilkinson, Cragun & Barker; James B. Hovis, Hovis, Cockrill & Roy; Kenneth A. MacDonald, Frederick L. Nolan, MacDonald, Hoague & Bayless; William H. Rodgers, Jr., Georgetown University Law Center, John H. Sennhauser, Legal Services Center; Alan C. Stay, Small Tribes Organization of Western Washington; William A. Stiles, Jr.; Michael Taylor, Quinault Tribal Office; Alvin J. Ziontz, Ziontz, Pirtle, Morisset, Ernstoff & Chestnut) (PDF)
Case summary: Tribes are entitled to continued access to traditional off-reservation fishing grounds, one-half total run of fish, and may regulate their members' fishing, while state may regulate Indian fishing rights only if necessary for conservation and if run cannot otherwise be preserved.

Joint Tribal Council of Passamaquoddy Tribe v. Morton, 388 F. Supp. 649 (D. Me. 1975) (Thomas N. Tureen, David C. Crosby, Barry A. Margolin, Calais, Me., Robert E. Mittel, Portland, Me., Stuart P. Ross, Washington, D.C., Robert S. Pelcyger, and David H. Getches, Boulder, Colo., for plaintiffs) (PDF)
Case summary: United States has trust obligation to enforce Indian land claim dormant for two centuries since the restriction against alienation imposed on Indian lands by the Indian Nonintercourse Act extends to aboriginal rights of "non-recognized" tribes located in original colonies.

Motion and Brief of Northern Cheyenne Indian Tribe as Amicus Curiae in Support of the Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the Supreme Court of the State of Montana, Fisher v. District Court, 424 U.S. 382 (1976) (per curiam) (No. 75-5366) (Thomas W. Fredericks, Daniel H. Israel, and David H. Getches, Native American Rights Fund) (PDF)
Case summary: The Montana Supreme Court held that the state court has jurisdiction over an adoption proceeding that arose on the Northern Cheyenne Indian Reservation and in which all parties are members of the Northern Cheyenne Tribe and residents of the Northern Cheyenne Indian Reservation. On appeal, the United States Supreme Court reversed that ruling and held that the Tribal Court of the Northern Cheyenne Tribe has exclusive jurisdiction over the adoption proceeding. Montana state-court jurisdiction over such a proceeding would interfere with the powers of self-government conferred upon the Tribe by federal law and exercised through the Tribal Court.

Appellants' Reply Brief, United States v. Washington, 520 F.2d 676 (9th Cir. 1975) (Nos. 74-2438, 74-2705, 74-2602) (David H. Getches and Douglas R. Nash, Native American Rights Fund; John Sennhauser, Legal Services Center; William H. Rodgers, Jr., Georgetown University Law Center; Michael Taylor, Quinault Tribal Office; Charles A. Hobbs, Wilkinson, Cragun & Barker; Alvin J. Ziontz, Ziontz, Pirtle, Morisset & Ernstoff; Lester Stritmatter, Stritmatter & Stritmatter; James B. Hovis, Hovis, Cockrill & Roy; and William A. Stiles, Jr.) (PDF)
Case summary: Tribes are entitled to continued access to traditional off-reservation fishing grounds, one-half total run of fish, and may regulate their members' fishing, while state may regulate Indian fishing rights only if necessary for conservation and if run cannot otherwise be preserved.

Appellants' Opening Brief, United States v. Washington, 520 F.2d 676 (9th Cir. 1975) (Nos. 74-2438, 74-2705, 74-2602) (David H. Getches and Douglas R. Nash, Native American Rights Fund; John Sennhauser, Legal Services Center; William H. Rodgers, Jr., Georgetown University Law Center; Michael Taylor, Quinault Tribal Office; Charles A. Hobbs, Wilkinson, Cragun & Barker; Alvin J. Ziontz, Ziontz, Pirtle, Morisset & Ernstoff; Lester Stritmatter, Stritmatter & Stritmatter; James B. Hovis, Hovis, Cockrill & Roy; and William A. Stiles, Jr.) (PDF)
Case summary: Tribes are entitled to continued access to traditional off-reservation fishing grounds, one-half total run of fish, and may regulate their members' fishing, while state may regulate Indian fishing rights only if necessary for conservation and if run cannot otherwise be preserved.

Brief of Tribal Appellees, United States v. Washington, 520 F.2d 676 (9th Cir. 1975) (No. 74-2414) (David H. Getches and Douglas R. Nash, Native American Rights Fund; Alvin J. Ziontz, Ziontz, Pirtle, Morisset & Ernstoff; James B. Hovis, Hovis, Cockrill & Roy; John Sennhauser, Legal Services Center; Michael Taylor, Quinault Tribal Office; Lester Stritmatter, Stritmatter & Stritmatter; William H. Rodgers, Jr., Georgetown University Law Center; Charles A. Hobbs, Wilkinson, Cragun & Barker; and William A. Stiles, Jr.) (PDF)
Case summary: Tribes are entitled to continued access to traditional off-reservation fishing grounds, one-half total run of fish, and may regulate their members' fishing, while state may regulate Indian fishing rights only if necessary for conservation and if run cannot otherwise be preserved.

Brief of the La Jolla, Rincon, San Pasqual, Pauma and Pala Bands of Mission Indians and the Department of Interior in Support of the Bands' Petition to Declare Certain Uses of the Project Works in Violation of the License for Project No. 176, In re Escondido Mut. Water Co., Nos. E-7562 and E-7655 (Sept. 23, 1974), FERC Opinion No. 36, Opinion and Order Issuing New Licenses, Determining Annual Charges for Past Periods, Prohibiting Certain Activities, Conditionally Providing Interim Operating Procedures, and Terminating Complaint and Investigatory Proceedings (February 26, 1979), 28 P.U.R. 4th 257, 6 FERC P61,189, 1979 WL 437187 and FERC Opinion No. 36-A, Opinion and Order on Rehearing Modifying Licenses and Stay, Determining Net Investment and Severance Damages, and Otherwise Denying Rehearing (November 26, 1979), 9 FERC P61,241, 1979 WL 31639 (Attorneys for the Secretary of Interior: Kent Frizzell, Solicitor; Reid Peyton Chambers, Associate Solicitor; and Harold A. Ranquist, Senior Attorney, Office of the Solicitor; Attorneys for the San Pasqual Band of Mission Indians: Arthur J. Gajarsa, Liss & Gajarsa; Attorneys for the Rincon, La Jolla, Pauma, and Pala Bands of Mission Indians: Robert S. Pelcyger, David H. Getches, John D. Ross, III, Native American Rights Fund; Bruce R. Greene, Michael Cox, California Indian Legal Services; and Donald L. Scoville, Plourd, Blume & Scoville) (PDF)
Case Summary: Federal Power Commission hearing in which Indians claim that Federal Power Commission license to water company affecting tribal water rights is legally and economically invalid.

Plaintiffs' Post-Trial Brief, United States v. Washington, 384 F. Supp. 312 (W.D. Wash. 1974) (No. 9213) (David H. Getches, Native American Rights Fund) (PDF)
The District Court denied Indian plaintiffs motion for attorney fees holding the Eleventh Amendment precluded the award of attorney fees against the state defendants. Decision rendered by Judge George Hugo Boldt of the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington.

Pretrial Brief, United States v. Washington, 384 F. Supp. 312 (W.D. Wash. 1974) (No. 9213) (David H. Getches and Douglas R. Nash, Native American Rights Fund; John Sennhauser, Legal Services Center, Attorneys for Plaintiffs Muckleshoot, Squaxin, Sauk-Siattle, Skokomish, and Stillaguamish Tribes) (PDF)

Motion for Attorneys' Fees and Other Expenses, United States v. Washington, 66 F.R.D. 477 (W.D. Wash. 1974) (No. 9213) (David H. Getches and Douglas R. Nash, Native American Rights Fund; John Sennhauser, Legal Services Center, Attorneys for Plaintiffs Muckleshoot, Squaxin, Sauk-Siattle, Skokomish, and Stillaguamish Tribes) (PDF)
Case summary: The District Court denied Indian plaintiffs motion for attorney fees holding the Eleventh Amendment precluded the award of attorney fees against the state defendants. Decision rendered by Judge George Hugo Boldt of the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington.

United States v. Washington, 66 F.R.D. 477 (W.D. Wash. 1974) (David H. Getches and Douglas R. Nash, Native American Rights Fund, Boulder, Colo., for intervenor Muckleshoot, Squaxin Island, Skokomish, Stillaguamish, Sauk-Suiatte & Nisqually Tribes) (PDF)
Case summary: The District Court denied Indian plaintiffs motion for attorney fees holding the Eleventh Amendment precluded the award of attorney fees against the state defendants. Decision rendered by Judge George Hugo Boldt of the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington.

Brief of Appellees, Mobil Oil Corp. v. Local Boundary Comm'n, 518 P.2d 92 (Alaska 1974) (No. 1947) (Charles K. Cranston; David H. Getches, Native American Rights Fund; John W. Hendrickson; John E. Havelock, Attorney General, by John A. Reeder, Jr., Assistant Attorney General) (PDF)
Case Summary: Court upheld decision that the incorporation of North Slope Borough was valid and met the geography standard. File No. 1947. Filed July 17, 1973, in the Supreme Court of the State of Alaska.

Brief of Respondents, Mobil Oil Corp. v. Local Boundary Comm'n, 518 P.2d 92 (Alaska 1974) (No. 1947) (David H. Getches and Reid Peyton Chambers, Native American Rights Fund; Frederick Paul, John Hendrickson) (PDF)
Case Summary: Court upheld decision that the incorporation of North Slope Borough was valid and met the geography standard.

Mobil Oil Corp. v. Local Boundary Comm'n, 518 P.2d 92 (Alaska 1974) (John E. Havelock, Atty. Gen., Juneau, John A. Reeder, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., Charles K. Cranston, Anchorage, David H. Getches, Native American Rights Fund, Boulder, Colo., John W. Hendrickson, Anchorage, for appellees) (PDF)
Case summary: Court upheld decision that the incorporation of North Slope Borough was valid and met the geography standard.

Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe of Indians v. Morton, 499 F.2d 1095 (D.C. Cir. 1974) (Robert S. Pelcyger, Boulder, Colo., with whom David H. Getches, Boulder, Colo. was on the brief, for appellee. L. Graeme Bell, III, Washington, D.C. also entered an appearance for appellee) (PDF)
Case summary: Secretary of the Interior violated his fiduciary obligations to the Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe by failing to minimize diversions from river feeding reservation lake, which resulted in continued diminishment of the lake and its fisheries. However, the tribe was not entitled to award of attorneys' fees.

Brief of Appellee, Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe of Indians v. Morton, 499 F.2d 1095 (D.C. Cir. 1974) (No. 73-2184) (Robert D. Stitser, Ltd.; Robert S. Pelcyger and David H. Getches, Native American Rights Fund) (PDF)
Case summary: Secretary of the Interior violated his fiduciary obligations to the Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe by failing to minimize diversions from river feeding reservation lake, which resulted in continued diminishment of the lake and its fisheries. However, the tribe was not entitled to award of attorneys' fees.

Brief of Amici Curiae Southern Ute Indian Tribe, Ute Mountain Ute Indian Tribe, and Nat'l Tribal Chairmen's Ass'n, United States v. Akin, 504 F.2d 115 (10th Cir. 1974) (No. 73-1807) (PDF)
Appeal from the judgment of the United States District Court for the District of Colorado : brief of amici curiae Southern Ute Indian tribe, Ute Mountain Ute Indian tribe, and National Tribal Chairmen's Association.

United States v. Akin, 504 F.2d 115 (10th Cir. 1974) (Thomas W. Fredericks, David H. Getches and Robert S. Pelcyger, Attys., Native American Rights Fund, Boulder, Colo., on the brief of amici curiae Southern Ute Indian Tribe, Ute Mountain Ute Indian Tribe and National Tribal Chairmen's Association) (PDF)
Case summary: Court of Appeals reversed dismissal of the action brought by the United States on its own behalf and on behalf of the Southern Ute and the Ute Mountain Ute Indian tribes for adjudication of reserved water rights in the San Juan Basin. The Colorado River Water Conservation District intervened as defendant asserting the McCarran Amendment provides a state court jurisdiction over the United States in suits involving adjudication of water rights and excludes federal courts from assuming jurisdiction. The Court of Appeals rejected the argument and held the United States District Court for the District of Colorado did not lack jurisdiction to hear the action and its abstention was improper.

Memorandum of Respondents in Opposition to Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, Callahan v. Kimball, cert. denied, 419 U.S. 1019 (1974) (No. 73-1575) (David H. Getches and Daniel H. Israel, Native American Rights Fund; Of counsel, Don B. Miller) (PDF)
Case summary: Former members of terminated Klamath Tribe who withdrew from tribe, and their descendants, retain rights under the Treaty of 1864 to hunt and fish within the former reservation free from state control, except for conservation purposes. Termination did not abrogate the hunting and fishing rights guaranteed by treaty of tribal members who withdrew from tribe and accepted individual shares rather than interest share in tribal property.

Motion for Leave to File Brief Amici Curiae and Brief of Nat'l Cong. of Am. Indians, Nat'l Tribal Chairmen's Ass'n, Univ. of N.M. Am. Indian Law Ctr., as Amici Curiae in Support of the Petitions for Writs of Certiorari to the Supreme Court of the State of Wisconsin, Tomow v. Menominee Enterprises, Inc. and Daly v. Natural Res. Bd., cert. denied, 414 U.S. 1137 (1974) (Nos. 73-760, 73-772) (Daniel H. Israel, Charles F. Wilkinson, and David H. Getches, Native American Rights Fund) (PDF)
Case Summary: Sale of lands and other actions taken without authorization of Indian shareholders held valid under Menominee Termination Act of 1954.

Brief of the Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe of Indians as Amicus Curiae in Support of Motion for Leave to File Complaint, United States v. Nevada, 412 U.S. 534 (1973) (per curiam) (No. 59 Original) (Robert S. Pelcyger and David H. Getches; Robert D. Stitser; Of counsel, Native American Rights Fund and Robert D. Stitser, Ltd.) (PDF)
Case summary: The U.S. Supreme Court rules that res judicata bars the United States and the Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe from seeking water rights to the Truckee River to preserve Pyramid Lake and its fish populations.

Minn. Chippewa Tribe v. Carlucci, 358 F. Supp. 973 (D.D.C. 1973) (L. Graeme Bell, III, Native American Rights Fund, Washington, D. C., Thomas W. Fredericks and David H. Getches, Native American Rights Fund, Boulder, Colo., Daniel M. Rosenfelt, Eric E. Van Loon, Center for Law and Education, Cambridge, Mass., for plaintiffs) (PDF)
Case summary: The United States District Court, District of Columbia held that the action against the President of the United States, Richard M. Nixon, for failure to appoint members to the National Advisory Council on Indian Education, pursuant to the Indian Education Act, was maintainable and should be decided on the merits. The Court denied the government's suggestion for dismissal on the basis that the action lacked subject matter jurisdiction and was related to executive, discretionary or political acts. President Nixon subsequently made appointments to the National Advisory Council on Indian Education on May 5, 1973, which lead the Court to issue a separate order on May 8, 1973 dismissing the case as moot.

Brief of Amicus Curiae Native Am. Rights Fund, Morton v. Ruiz, 415 U.S. 199 (1974) (No. 72-1052), 1973 WL 172630 (David H. Getches and Daniel H. Israel, Native American Rights Fund) (PDF)
Case summary: BIA benefits under the Snyder Act cannot be denied to Indians living in Indian community near native reservation who maintain close ties with reservation and who have not been assimilated into general society.

Brief for the Plaintiffs-Appellants, Jicarilla Apache Tribe of Indians v. Morton, 471 F.2d 1275 (9th Cir. 1973) (No. 72-1634) (Edward Berlin, Berlin, Roisman and Kessler; Bruce R. Greene, Joseph J. Brecher, Reid Peyton Chambers, David H. Getches, and Robert S. Pelcyger, Native American Rights Fund) (PDF)
Case summary: The District Court ruled the Secretary had complied with federal environmental laws in preparing separate environmental impact statements concerning construction of power complex on and near reservations and was not required to conduct overall area analysis considering cumulative impact as alleged by tribes.

Motion for Leave to File Brief Amici Curiae and Brief of Amici Curiae Ramona C. Bennett, Muckleshoot Indian Tribe, Squaxin Island Tribe of Indians, Nisqually Indian Community, and Sauk-Suiattle Indian Tribe, Puyallup Tribe, Inc. v. Dep't of Game of State of Wash., 433 U.S. 165 (1977) (Nos. 72-746, 72-481), 1973 WL 172052 (David H. Getches, Native American Rights Fund) (PDF)
Case summary: Action for judgment defining treaty fishing rights of Indian tribe.

Brief of Native Am. Rights Fund as Amicus Curiae in Support of Respondents, United States v. Mason, 412 U.S. 391 (1973) (No. 72-654), 1973 WL 172579 (David H. Getches, Reid Peyton Chambers, and Monroe E. Price, Native American Rights Fund) (PDF)
Case summary: The United States did not breach its fiduciary duty as trustee of Indian property by paying the Oklahoma inheritance tax assessed against the estate of decedent, a restricted Osage Indian.

Motion for Leave to File Brief Amicus Curiae Out of Time and Brief of Amicus Curiae, Cocopah Tribe of Indians, Bonelli Cattle Co. v. Arizona, 414 U.S. 313 (1973) (No. 72-397) (David H. Getches, A. John Wabaunsee, and Charles F. Wilkinson, Native American Rights Fund) (PDF)

Andrade v. United States, 202 Ct. Cl. 988, 485 F.2d 660(1973) (George Forman, Escondido, Cal., attorney of record for plaintiffs (No. 347-72); Bruce R. Greene, Berkeley, Cal., Aubrey Grossman, San Francisco, Cal., David Getches, and John E. Echohawk, Boulder, Colo., of counsel. AubreyGrossman, San Francisco, Cal., attorney of record for plaintiffs (No. 47-73); Bruce R. Greene, Berkeley, Cal., David Getches, John E. Echohawk, Boulder, Colo., and George Forman, Escondido, Cal., of counsel) (PDF)
Case summary: The Court of Claims held the action filed attempting to overturn the 1964 judgement of the Indian Claims Commission was barred by the statute of limitations and laches due to inaction for eight years after the cause of action was known. The court also held that the claims pertaining to the 1968 Act of Congress setting up a Roll of Indians to share in a settlement were inadequately briefed.

Motion for Leave to File Brief as Amicus Curiae and Brief of Amicus Curiae, Oneida Indian Nation v. Cnty. of Oneida, 464 F.2d 916 (2d Cir. 1972) (No. 72-1029) (David H. Getches and Peter Aschenbrenner, Native American Rights Fund) (PDF)
Case summary: Action by the Oneida Indian Nations of New York State and Wisconsin challenging sale of tribal lands as violating Indian treaties and the Indian Non-Intercourse Act. The Court of Appeals affirmed dismissal for lack of federal question jurisdiction.

Oneida Indian Nation v. Cnty. of Oneida, 464 F.2d 916(2d Cir. 1972) (Charles Donaldson, Syracuse, N. Y., of counsel, American Civil Liberties Union and David H. Getches, Boulder Colo., and Peter J. Aschenbrenner, of counsel, Native American Rights Fund, for appellants, amicus curiae). Reprinted from Westlaw with permission o (PDF)
Case summary: Action by the Oneida Indian Nations of New York State and Wisconsin challenging sale of tribal lands as violating Indian treaties and the Indian Non-Intercourse Act. The Court of Appeals affirmed dismissal for lack of federal question jurisdiction.

Davis v. Warden, 88 Nev. 443, 498 P.2d 1346 (1972) (Joseph L. Ward, U.S. Atty., Raymond B. Little, Asst. U.S. Atty., Robert D. Stitser, Reno, and Daniel J. Taaffe, David H. Getches and Robert S. Pelcyger, Native American Rights Fund, Boulder, Colo., amicus curiae) (PDF)
Case summary: State lacked jurisdiction to convict appellants, enrolled members of the Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe of Indians, for attempted murder of non-Indian since action occurred within the Pyramid Lake Indian Reservation, which has been excluded from state's jurisdiction.

Rincon Band of Mission Indians v. Escondido Mut. Water Co., 459 F.2d 1082 (9th Cir. 1972) (Robert S. Pelcyger, Escondido, Cal. (argued), David H. Getches, Daniel M. Rosenfelt, Boulder, Colo., for plaintiffs-appellants) (PDF)
Case summary: Action by tribes to recover damages from and prevent further diversion and appropriation of San Luis Rey River water in violation of Indians' paramount water rights. United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the lower court's ruling denying the Indian tribes' demand that the United States Attorney General be required to provide legal representation for this water rights claim.

Motion for Leave to File Brief as Amicus Curiae and Brief of Native Am. Rights Fund, as Amicus Curiae, Rincon Band of Mission Indians v. Cnty. of San Diego, 495 F.2d 1 (9th Cir. 1974) (71-1927) (Monroe E. Price, Robert S. Pelcyger, and David H. Getches, Native American Rights Fund) (PDF)
Case summary: Suit for declaration that county gambling ordinance is inapplicable to reservation land is dismissed because case presented no actual controversy between Indians and county.

Motion for Leave to File Brief as Amicus Curiae and Brief of the Native Am. Rights Fund, as Amicus Curiae, Affiliated Ute Citizens of Utah v. United States, 406 U.S. 128 (1972) (No. 70-78) (David H. Getches and Robert S. Pelcyger, Native American Rights Fund; Of counsel, Wallace L. Duncan and Jon T. Brown, Native American Rights Fund) (PDF)
Case summary: Under the Ute Termination Act, once Secretary of Interior issued proclamation of termination the United States no longer owed any trust duty or responsibility to the mixed blood members of the Ute Tribe.

Reply Brief for Complainants-Petitioners, Chemehuevi Tribe of Indians v. Federal Power Comm'n, 489 F.2d 1207 (D.C. Cir. 1973) (No. 71-2012) (Joseph J. Brecher, Bruce R. Greene, and David H. Getches, Native American Rights Fund) (PDF)
Case summary: Federal Power Commission does not have licensing jurisdiction over steam power plants which are located on or near Indian reservations.

Petitioners' Supplemental Brief, Chemehuevi Tribe of Indians v. Federal Power Comm'n, 489 F.2d 1207 (D.C. Cir. 1973) (No. 71-2012) (Joseph J. Brecher, Bruce R. Greene, and David H. Getches, Native American Rights Fund; Edward Berlin, Esq., Berlin, Roisman and Kessler) (PDF)
Case summary: Federal Power Commission does not have licensing jurisdiction over steam power plants which are located on or near Indian reservations.

Brief for Complainants-Petitioners, Chemehuevi Tribe of Indians v. Federal Power Comm'n, 489 F.2d 1207 (D.C. Cir. 1973) (No. 71-2012) (Joseph J. Brecher, Bruce R. Greene, and David H. Getches, Native American Rights Fund) (PDF)
Case summary: Federal Power Commission does not have licensing jurisdiction over steam power plants which are located on or near Indian reservations.

Brief of Amicus Curiae, United States v. Kills Plenty, 466 F.2d 240 (8th Cir. 1972) (No. 71-1661) (David H. Getches and Thomas L. Smithson, Native American Rights Fund) (PDF)
Case summary: Indian's acquittal of driving while intoxicated by tribal court did not bar prosecution and conviction for involuntary manslaughter arising from same incident in federal court.

Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, Lomayaktewa v. Corcoran, cert. denied, 409 U.S. 843 (1972) (No. 71-1418) (David H. Getches, Native American Rights Fund) (PDF)
Case summary: An Indian tribe is an indispensable party which cannot be joined without its consent in a suit by tribal members to set aside Interior Secretary's approval of strip mining lease between tribe and coal company.

Appellant's Reply Brief, United States v. 687.30 Acres of Land, 451 F.2d 667 (8th Cir. 1971) (No. 71-1122) (Frederick S. Cassman; Daniel M. Rosenfelt, David H. Getches, Robert S. Pelcyger, and Francis J. O'Toole, Native American Rights Fund; Of counsel, Donald W. Sylvester) (PDF)
Case summary: Suit by Winnebago Tribe of Nebraska contends that congressional legislation enabling condemnation of tribal land for federal water project failed to manifest requisite intent to abrogate treaty rights. Court holds that orders denying tribe's request for relief were not appealable.

Brief of Appellants, United States v. 687.30 Acres of Land, 451 F.2d 667 (8th Cir. 1971) (No. 71-1122) (Frederick S. Cassman; Daniel M. Rosenfelt, David H. Getches, Robert S. Pelcyger, and Francis J. O'Toole, Native American Rights Fund; Of counsel, Charles R. Wolle) (PDF)
Case summary: Suit by Winnebago Tribe of Nebraska contends that congressional legislation enabling condemnation of tribal land for federal water project failed to manifest requisite intent to abrogate treaty rights. Court holds that orders denying tribe's request for relief were not appealable.

Memorandum in Opposition to Appellee's Motions to Dismiss, Sandia Pueblo v. Bernalillo Mun. Sch. Dist. Bd. of Educ., No. 71-1092 (10th Cir. Mar. 3, 1971) (PDF)

Plaintiff's Docketing Statement, Sandia Pueblo v. Bernalillo Mun. Sch. Dist. Bd. of Educ., No. 71-1092 (10th Cir. Dec. 23, 1970) (PDF)

Brief of Native Am. Rights Fund as Amicus Curiae in Support of the Appellant, Tonasket v. Washington, 411 U.S. 451 (1973) (No. 71-1031), 1971 WL 134328 (David H. Getches, Daniel H. Israel, and Robert S. Pelycyger [Pelcyger], Native American Rights Fund) (PDF)
Opinion: State which has assumed civil and criminal jurisdiction over Indian reservation has authority to tax retail sale of cigarettes by tribally-licensed Indian store to non-Indian.

Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, Winnebago Tribe of Neb. v. United States, cert. denied, 405 U.S. 1026 (1972) (No. 71-938) (Daniel M. Rosenfelt, Charles F. Wilkinson, and David H. Getches, Native American RIghts Fund; Frederick S. Cassman, Abrahams, Kaslow & Cassman). (PDF)
Case summary: In suit by tribe contending that congressional legislation enabling condemnation of tribal land for federal water project failed to manifest requisite intent to abrogate treaty rights, U.S. Supreme Court held that orders denying tribe's request for relief were not appealable.

Brief of Native American Rights Fund as Amicus Curiae in Support of Apellant, McClanahan v. State Tax Comm'n of Arizona, 411 U.S. 164 (1973) (No. 71-834), 1971 WL 134312 (David H. Getches, John E. Echohawk, and Thomas L. Smithson, Native American Rights Fund) (PDF)
Case Summary: State lacks jurisdiction to impose a tax on the income of Navajo Indians residing within their reservation and earning their income on the reservation.

Brief of Native American Rights Fund as Amicus Curiae in Support of the Petitioner, Mescalero Apache Tribe v. Jones, 411 U.S. 145 (1973) (No. 71-738), 1972 WL 136296 (David H. Getches and L. Graeme Bell, III, Native American Rights Fund) (PDF)
In the Supreme Court of the United States, October term, 1971.

Reply of Native Am. Rights Fund, Calif. Indian Legal Services, Dinebeiina Nahiilna Be Agaditahe, and Ass'n on Am. Indian Affairs, Inc., as Amici Curiae to Memorandum for the U.S., Agua Caliente Band of Mission Indians v. Cnty. of Riverside, cert denied, 405 U.S. 933 (1972) (No. 71-183), 1972 WL 135466, 1972 WL 135472 (Arthur Lazarus, Jr., Association on American Indian Affairs, Inc.; David H. Getches, Native American Rights Fund, California Indian Legal Services, and Dinebeiina Nahiilna Be Agaditahe) (PDF)
Case summary: Possessory interest tax could be imposed on lesses of Indian land absent legislation demonstrating a congressional purpose to forbid imposition of tax.

Brief of Native Am. Rights Fund, Calif. Indian Legal Services, and Dinebeiina Nahiilna Be Agaditahe as Amici Curiae in Support of the Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, Agua Caliente Band of Mission Indians v. Cnty. of Riverside, cert denied, 405 U.S. 933 (1972) (No. 71-183) (David H. Getches, Native American Rights Fund) (PDF)
Case summary: Possessory interest tax could be imposed on lesses of Indian land absent legislation demonstrating a congressional purpose to forbid imposition of tax.

Brief of Amicus Curiae, Agua Caliente Band of Mission Indians v. Cnty. of Riverside, 442 F.2d 1184 (9th Cir. 1971) (No. 25298) (Robert S. Pelcyger and David H. Getches, California Indian Legal Services, Inc.) (PDF)
Case summary: Possessory interest tax could be imposed on lesses of Indian land absent legislation demonstrating a congressional purpose to forbid imposition of tax.

Agua Caliente Band of Mission Indians v. Cnty. of Riverside, 442 F.2d 1184 (9th Cir. 1971) (Evelle J. Younger, Cal. Atty. Gen., Ernest P. Goodman, Asst. Atty. Gen., Edward P. Hollingshead, Walter J. Wiesner, Deputy Attys. Gen., Sacramento, Cal., Robert S. Pelcyger, David H. Getches, Escondido, Cal., Minerva Jenkins, Chairman, Tribal Council, Needles, Cal., amicus curiae) (PDF)
Case summary: California possessory interest tax could be imposed on lessees of Indian land absent legislation demonstrating a congressional purpose to forbid imposition of the tax.

Appellant's Reply Brief, State v. Pedro, 83 N.M. 212, 490 P.2d 470 (Ct. App. 1971) (No. 660) (Scott McCarty, Esq.; David H. Getches and Richard B. Collins, Jr., Native American Rights Fund) (PDF)
Case summary: Conviction of Indian for possession of peyote dismissed since New Mexico state statute requires intent to be element of the crime.

State v. Pedro, 83 N.M. 212, 490 P.2d 470 (Ct. App. 1971) (Scott McCarty, Albuquerque, David H. Getches, Richard B. Collins, Jr., Native American Rights Fund, Boulder, Colo., for defendant-appellant) (PDF)
Case summary: Conviction of Indian for possession of peyote dismissed since New Mexico state statute requires intent to be element of the crime.

United States v. 687.30 Acres of Land, 451 F.2d 667 (8th Cir. 1971) (Frederick S. Cassman, Omaha, Neb., Daniel M. Rosenfelt, David H. Getches, Robert S. Pelcyger, Francis J. O'Toole, Native American Rights Fund, Escondido, Cal., for appellants; Charles R. Wolle, Donald W. Sylvester, Sioux City, Iowa, of counsel). (PDF)
Case summary: Suit by Winnebago Tribe of Nebraska contends that congressional legislation enabling condemnation of tribal land for federal water project failed to manifest requisite intent to abrogate treaty rights. Court holds that orders denying tribe's request for relief were not appealable.

Jurisdictional Statement, Ramos v. Montgomery, 400 U.S. 1003 (1971) (No. 5912) (George F. Duke and David H. Getches, California Indian Legal Services; Daniel M. Rosenfelt and Robert S. Pelcyger, California Indian Legal Services, Counsel for Appellants) (PDF)
Case summary: Supreme Court affirmed Federal Court's dismissal of a suit to compel State Welfare Department to make AFDC payments to natural parents equal to that given to foster parents.

Ramos v. Montgomery, 313 F. Supp. 1179 (S.D. Cal. 1970) (David H. Getches, Robert S. Pelcyger, California Indian Legal Services, Escondido, Cal., for plaintiffs), aff'd 400 U.S. 1003 (1971) (PDF)
Case summary: Dismissal of suit to compel State Welfare Department to make AFDC payments to natural parents equal to that given to foster parents.

Brief of Native Am. Rights Fund as Amicus Curiae in Support of a Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the Supreme Court of the State of Nebraska, Goham v. Nebraska, cert denied, 404 U.S. 1004 (1971) (No. 71-293) (David H. Getches, Native American Rights Fund) (PDF)
Case summary: Indian's habeas corpus petition following conviction by Nebraska for rape of non-Indian on reservation of the Omaha Tribe of Nebraska, challenged on basis that Nebraska had retroceeded criminal jurisdiction over the reservation, is denied.

Appellant's Petition for Rehearing, United States v. Alpine Land & Reservoir Co., 431 F.2d 763 (9th Cir. 1970) (No. 24156) (Robert D. Stitser, Ltd.; Robert S. Pelcyger, David H. Getches, and Daniel M. Rosenfelt, Native American Rights Fund) (PDF)
Case summary: Court denies tribe's motion to intervene in action by the government to quiet title to rights to water for a federal reclamation project, and court later holds that water rights of federal reclamation project are not limited by virtue of state law or contracts between Secretary of Interior and project water users.

Complaint, Cochiti Pueblo v. Bernalillo Mun. Sch. Dist. Bd. of Educ., No. 8313-Civil (D. N.M. Dec. 10, 1969) (PDF)
Complaint: Prohibitory Injunction, Mandatory Injunction, Declaratory Relief, Other Relief (Jury Trial Demanded).

Scholder v. United States, 428 F.2d 1123 (9th Cir. 1970) (George F. Duke, Lee J. Sclar, of California Indian Legal Services, Berkeley, Cal., David H. Getches, Escondido, Cal., for Rincon Band of Mission Indians) (PDF)
Case summary: Class action suit brought by individual Indians and Indian bands to stop the Secretary of the Interior and the Bureau of Indian Affairs from spending Pala Indian Irrigation Project funds for the benefit of a non-Indian owner of land situated within the Indian irrigation district. The Court of Appeals affirmed in part and reversed in part the District Court's holding regarding spending of Indian irrigation project funds for benefit of non-Indian land owner within the project. The Court of Appeals reaffirmed the expenditure by the Secretary of Interior and Bureau of Indian Affairs was not an unconstitutional taking under applicable federal laws and remanded the Indian's claim as to the validity of reimbursement charges.

Opening Brief of Appellants, Scholder v. United States, 428 F.2d 1123 (9th Cir. 1970) (No. 24306) (George F. Duke, Richard B. Collins, Jr., Lee J. Sclar, Robert S. Pelcyger, and David H. Getches, California Indian Legal Services; Alexander, Inman & Fine) (PDF)
Case summary: Class action suit brought by individual Indians and Indian bands to stop the Secretary of the Interior and the Bureau of Indian Affairs from spending Pala Indian Irrigation Project funds for the benefit of a non-Indian owner of land situated within the Indian irrigation district. The Court of Appeals affirmed in part and reversed in part the District Court's holding regarding spending of Indian irrigation project funds for benefit of non-Indian land owner within the project. The Court of Appeals reaffirmed the expenditure by the Secretary of Interior and Bureau of Indian Affairs was not an unconstitutional taking under applicable federal laws and remanded the Indian's claim as to the validity of reimbursement charges.

Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, Scholder v. United States, cert. denied, 400 U.S. 942 (1970) (No. 665) (George F. Duke, and Richard B. Collins, Jr., David H. Getches, Robert S. Pelcyger, and Lee J. Sclar, California Indian Legal Services; Alexander, Inman & Fine) (PDF)
Case summary: Class action suit brought by individual Indians and Indian bands to stop the Secretary of the Interior and the Bureau of Indian Affairs from spending Pala Indian Irrigation Project funds for the benefit of a non-Indian owner of land situated within the Indian irrigation district. The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed in part and reversed in part the United States Court for the District of Southern California's holding regarding spending of Indian irrigation project funds for benefit of non-Indian land owner within the project. The Court of Appeals reaffirmed the expenditure by the Secretary of Interior and Bureau of Indian Affairs was not an unconstitutional taking under applicable federal laws and remanded the Indian's claim as to the validity of reimbursement charges. The United States Supreme Court ruled that use of Indian irrigation project funds for benefit of non-Indian land owner within project was allowable under applicable federal laws.

Scholder v. United States, 298 F. Supp. 1282 (S.D. Cal. 1969) (George F. Duke, Lee J. Sclar, Santa Rosa, Cal., Richard B. Collins, Jr., Berkeley, Cal., Robert S. Pelcyger, David H. Getches, Escondido, Cal.; Alexander, Inman & Fine, Beverly Hills, Cal., for plaintiffs) (PDF)
Case summary: Class action suit brought by individual Indians and Indian bands to stop the Secretary of the Interior and the Bureau of Indian Affairs from spending Pala Indian Irrigation Project funds for the benefit of a non-Indian owner of land situated within the Indian irrigation district. The District Court denied plaintiffs' motion. The court held the expenditure was not an unconstitutional taking under applicable federal laws.

Points and Authorities in Opposition to Petition for Writ of Mandate, Knudson v. Superior Court, 267 Cal. App. 2d 876, 73 Cal. Rptr. 513 (1968) (No. 4 - Civ. 9370) (Luce, Forward, Hamilton & Scripps and David H. Getches, Attorneys for Great American Ins. Co., Real Party in Interest) (PDF)
Case summary: Petitioner filed a writ of mandate to require the appellate department of the Superior Court of San Diego County to hear and rule on appeals by petitioner from judgments issued in the absence of petitioner and his counsel. The Court of Appeal held the appeals were timely filed under Rule 123(b) of the California Rules of Court and the Superior Court's motion to dismiss the appeals due to untimely filing was improper.

Knudson v. Superior Court, 267 Cal. App. 2d 876, 73 Cal. Rptr. 513 (1968) (Luce, Forward, Hamilton & Scripps and David H. Getches, San Diego, for Great American Ins. Co., Real Party in Interest) (PDF)
Case summary: Petitioner filed a writ of mandate to require the appellate department of the Superior Court of San Diego County to hear and rule on appeals by petitioner from judgments issued in the absence of petitioner and his counsel. The Court of Appeal held the appeals were timely filed under Rule 123(b) of the California Rules of Court and the Superior Court's motion to dismiss the appeals due to untimely filing was improper.


"Bypass flows" on national forest lands : joint oversight hearing before the Subcommittee on Forests and Forest Health and the Subcommittee on Water and Power of the Committee on Resources, U.S. House of Representatives, One Hundred Seventh Congress, first session, May 22, 2001. (PDF)
Oral and written testimony of David H. Getches during this Congressional hearing is contained on p. 38-45

Secretarial powers under the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976: excessive use of Section 204 withdrawal authority by the Clinton administration : joint oversight hearing before the Subcommittee on National Parks and Public Lands and Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources of the Committee on Resources, House of Representatives, One Hundred Sixth Congress, first session, March 23, 1999, Washington, DC. (PDF)
Oral and written testimony of David H. Getches during the Congressional hearing on secretarial powers under the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 and excessive use of Section 204 withdrawal authority by the Clinton Administration.

Water problems facing the Lower Colorado River area : hearings before the Subcommittee on Water and Power of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, United States Senate, One Hundred Third Congress, second session. (PDF)
Oral and written testimony of David H. Getches during the Congressional hearings on water problems facing the lower Colorado River area. The hearings were held on June 8 & 9, 1994. David Getches testified on Thursday June 9, 1994.

The changing needs of the West: oversight hearing before the Committee on Natural Resources, House of Representatives, One Hundred Third Congress, second session ... hearing held in Salt Lake City, UT, April 7, 1994. (PDF)
Oral and written testimony of David H. Getches during the Congressional hearing on the changing needs of the West. The transcript of his statement before the committee is followed by some of his published writings on the subject: Chapter 4 of the book Searching Out the Headwaters: Change and Rediscovery in Western Water Policy (chapter is titled: The West Today); an essay in the Nov. 16, 1992 issue of High Country News, titled: This Process is Out of Control; an article from the July 1990 issue of Journal of the West, titled: A Philosophy of Permanence: the Indians' Legacy for the West.

Colorado Wilderness Act of 1991: hearing before the Subcommittee on Public Lands, National Parks, and Forests of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, United States Senate, One Hundred Second Congress, first session, on S. 1029 ... June 18, 1991. (PDF)
Oral and written testimony of David H. Getches during the Congressional hearing on the Colorado Wilderness Act of 1991.

Colorado Wilderness Act of 1989: hearing before the Subcommittee on Public Lands, National Parks and Forests of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, United States Senate, One Hundred First Congress, first session, on S. 1343 ... Denver CO, October 28, 1989. (PDF)
Oral and written testimony of David H. Getches during this Congressional hearing is contained on p. 31-32 and 186-199.

Indian water policy : hearing before the Select Committee on Indian Affairs, United States Senate, One Hundred First Congress, first session ... April 6, 1989, Washington, DC. (PDF)
Oral and written testimony of David H. Getches during the Congressional hearing on Indian water policy.

Tribal court systems and Indian Civil Rights Act : hearing before the Select Committee on Indian Affairs, United States Senate, One Hundredth Congress, second session ... January 22, 1988, Washington, DC. (PDF)
Oral and written testimony of David H. Getches during the Congressional hearing on tribal court systems and the Indian Civil Rights Act.

Additions to the national wilderness preservation system : hearing before the Subcommittee on Public Lands of the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, House of Representatives, Ninety-ninth Congress, second session : on H.R. 34 to designate certain additional lands in the state of Colorado as components of the national wilderness preservation system : H.R. 4233 to provide a process for the federal government to seek minimum instream flows of streams in Colorado wilderness areas, and for other purposes : hearing held in Washington, DC : June 10, 1986. (PDF)
Oral and written testimony of David H. Getches during the Congressional hearing on additions to the national wilderness preservation system, specifically on H.R. 34, to designate certain national forest system lands in the state of Colorado for inclusion in the national wilderness preservation system; and H.R. 4233, to provide a process for the federal government to seek minimum instream flows of streams in Colorado wilderness areas, and for other purposes. This hearing was held on June 10, 1986 in Washington, D.C. This testimony is contained in the volume designated as Part IV of Serial No. 99-19.

Colorado Wilderness Act: hearing before the Subcommittee on Public Lands and Reserved Water of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, United States Senate, Ninety-eighth Congress, second session, on S. 2032 ... S. 2916 ... H.R. 5426 ... September 18, 1984. (PDF)
Oral and written testimony of David H. Getches during the Congressional hearing on the Colorado Wilderness Act.

Additions to the national wilderness preservation system : hearings before the Subcommittee on Public Lands and National Parks of the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, House of Representatives, Ninety-eighth Congress, second session: May 10, 1984: H.R. 5426 and H.R. 5470: to designate certain national forest system lands in the state of Colorado for inclusion in the national wilderness preservation system, and for other purposes. (PDF)
Oral and written testimony of David H. Getches during the Congressional hearing on additions to the national wilderness preservation system, specifically on H.R. 5426 and H.R. 5470, to designate certain national forest system lands in the state of Colorado for inclusion in the national wilderness preservation system. This hearing was held on May 10, 1984 in Washington, D.C. This testimony is contained in the volume designated as Part XI of Serial No. 98-3.

Native Hawaiians Study Commission: hearings before the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, United States Senate, Ninety-eighth Congress, second session, on the report of the Native Hawaiians Study Commission. (PDF)
Oral and written testimony of David H. Getches during this Congressional hearing is contained on p. 48-71 of Part 1. His testimony was delivered on Monday April 16, 1984 in Honolulu, Hawaii.

Amending the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act: hearing before the Subcommittee on Indian Affairs of the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, House of Representatives, ninety-third congress, second session on H.R. 12355, to amend the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act, (85 Stat. 688) : hearing held in Washington, D.C. Feb. 4, 1974. (PDF)
Oral and written testimony of David H. Getches during the Congressional hearing on amending the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act, held on Feb. 4, 1974 in Washington, D.C.


Welcome to Admitted Students (Mar. 31, 2011) (PDF)
This is David's longest and strongest sales pitch on why to pursue a legal education, and why to choose Colorado Law over other schools. It features some vintage Getches lines: "You don't have to know as you come in the door next August where you will end up, only the kind of person you want to be." OR "Look at the surroundings. Imagine having a life as well as an education here."

Remarks on Court Peterson: Law Review Banquet (Mar. 31, 2011) (PDF)
These remarks were delivered at the 2011 Spring banquet of the University of Colorado Law Review, following the death of former Law School Dean Courtland (Court) Peterson in November, 2010. David describes Peterson as "one of the best friends the Law Review ever had."

Remarks at 30th Annual Alumni Awards Banquet (Mar. 9, 2011) (PDF)
This was the final banquet of Getches' eight-year deanship. He reviews the many accomplishments of the law school over the past year and congratulates Professor William T. Pizzi on the occasion of his retirement.

Welcome to the Class of 2013 (Aug. 16, 2010) (PDF)
Dean Getches describes the diverse class of 2013 and defines the ethos, or culture, of the legal profession.

Commencement 2010 Remarks (Friday May 7, 2010) (PDF)
The virtues of citizen-lawyers are extolled in Getches' 2010 commencement address.

Remarks at 29th Annual Alumni Awards Banquet (Mar. 11, 2010) (PDF)
Dean Getches recounts the law school's accomplishments of the past year and announces the retirement of Assistant Dean Lorenzo Trujillo.

Welcome to the Class of 2012 (Aug. 18, 2009) (PDF)
This is one of the longer speeches of Dean Getches available in the archives, and it could be characterized as a "legacy" speech. Getches begins his remarks by sharing interesting facts about the entering class, but he concludes them by talking earnestly about the legal profession and its ideals.

Welcome to Diversity Students (Aug. 17, 2009) (PDF)
Getches' advice to entering diversity students in 2009 was to "cling to your ideals" and "consider the diversity of your class to be a cardinal strength."

Commencement 2009 Remarks, "Go Where You Are Needed" (May 8, 2009) (PDF)
Dean Getches observes that "[t]he Class of 2009's signature characteristics of engagement and leadership make it a fair prediction that this is a class that will be heard from--loud and clear, far and wide."

Welcome to the Class of 2011 (Aug. 19, 2008) (PDF)
Getches' welcome speech advises students that to succeed as lawyers and persuade people to accept solutions to problems the lawyers must be strong in three qualities identified by Aristotle: "logos, pathos, and ethos."

Introduction of Sarah Krakoff, 33rd Annual Austin W. Scott, Jr. Lecture (Nov. 14, 2007) (PDF)
In this introduction to Professor Krakoff's lecture, David Getches talks about the intersection of Indians and natural resources law and the relationship of Indians to the natural world. .

Welcome to the Class of 2010 (Aug. 21, 2007) (PDF)
Dean Getches' welcome speech discusses "taking on the burdens of being a professional" and "making society function under the rule of law."

Introduction of Professor Erwin Chemerinsky, 50th Annual Coen Lecture (Apr. 24, 2007) (PDF)
Dean Getches introduces Duke Law School Professor Erwin Chemerinsky as the 50th Annual Coen Lecturer in 2007. His introduction exudes enormous admiration for Chemerinsky's ethics and professional accomplishments.

Dedication of Wittemyer Courtroom (Apr. 13, 2007) (PDF)
John Wittemyer graduated from the law school in 1965, and his wife Nancy is a 1964 graduate of the CU education school. Their son Chris and his wife Patricia are 1994 graduates of the law school. Getches says in his dedication that the new Wittemyer Courtroom "may now be the best courtroom in the nation," and that the place is a "monument to Wittemyer generosity."

Remarks at the Clifford Calhoun Public Service Award Luncheon (May 11, 2005) (PDF)
Professor Norton Steuben was the recipient of the 2005 Calhoun Award. Getches relates a personal story about coming to Boulder on a "reconnaissance trip" 35 years ago, looking for a place to set up an office for the Native American Rights Fund (NARF). He met with Nort, who offered him lemonade at his home and encouraged an association between NARF and the law school.

Remarks at the Clifford Calhoun Public Service Award Luncheon (Apr. 26, 2004) (PDF)
Professor Charles Wilkinson was the recipient of the 2004 Calhoun Award. In his remarks David Getches reflects on the "far-reaching" public service work that his cherished friend and colleague has performed.

Message to BLSA : Black Law Students Ass'n (Aug. 16, 2003) (PDF)
This brief message to the Black Law Students Association in August of 2003 (read to them in absentia) is significant because it comes on the heels of the U.S. Supreme Court's Michigan affirmative action decisions on race and admissions (Gratz and Grutter).

“In Memory of Skip Chase” (Jan. 12, 1988) (PDF)
Getches recalls the passion and humanity of the late Skip Chase, and he announces the creation of the Chase Human Rights Fellowship at CU Law. Jonathon "Skip" Chase served as a Professor of Law at the University of Colorado Law