De Castro Law Office

Randy Maas _{on ChamberofCommerce.com}

Oct 5th, 2023

Excellent Job. Will Hire him again.

Tyler Gerritsen _{on Google}

Aug 9th, 2022

Hired him, he took my money.. Did not show up for any of my appearances. Neither his assistant, nor him returned any of my phone calls. Put me in a worse spot with my legal troubles. Only time her replied is when I asked for my money back. Very prompt at that point, months after accepting to represent me. Terrible.

Daniel Gomez _{on Google}

Mar 23rd, 2023

This attorney cannot uphold, honor or respect the constitutions 6th amendment he provides defective council and waives speedy trial rights due to HIS personal problems with deliberate indifference to the clients rights. He does not file pretrial motions he does not meet with clients regularly and makes little to no court appearances. He had my case for 11 months later recusing himself due to complaint s filed with the state bar disciplinary board resulting in a lawsuit against the city of Sioux Falls for failure to train supervise and discipline its several officers of the court and for the deprivation of rights namely the 6th amendment right to the effective assistance of lawyer speedy trial due process and the equal protections of the law this attorney and law office is a poor excuse of a lawyer see us district court case #4:22-cv-04147 doc 2 for details of the complaint he should be disbarred from practicing law he has been sued for legal malpractice in the past

Byron Jay _{on Google}

Jun 4th, 2022

Doesnt appear been my attorney since February and I dont even know what he looks like hasnt shown discovery file hasnt responded to reasonable requests for information violating rules of professional conduct under sock 16-18 breach of fiduciary duty as far as I can tell speedy trial demanded on several instances and that right denied by several state employees over and over
The State's interest in protecting the well-being, tranquility, and privacy of the home is certainly of the highest order in a free and civilized society.' Our prior decisions have often remarked on the unique nature of the home, 'the last citadel of the tired, the weary, and the sick,' , and have recognized that 'preserving the sanctity of the home, the one retreat to which men and women can repair to escape from the tribulations of their daily pursuits, is surely an important value.'
I need you to research Dakota territory as Indian country find the map and boundary lines from treaty in in regards please and thank you
Rosebud Sioux Tribe v. State of S.D
Download PDFCheck Treatment
Summary
Holding that state failed to assume even partial jurisdiction in compliance with Public Law 280
Summary of this case from U.S. v. Anderson
See 2 Summaries
Opinion
Nos. 89-5227, 89-5228 and 89-5252.
Submitted October 13, 1989.
Decided March 16, 1990. Rehearing and Rehearing En Banc Denied June 8, 1990.
William R. Perry, Washington, D.C., for appellants.
John P. Guhin, Pierre, S.D., for appellees.
Appeal from the United States District for the District of South Dakota.
Before LAY, Chief Judge, McMILLIAN and WOLLMAN, Circuit Judges.
Search All Caselaw on Casetext. Get red flags, copy-with-cite, case summaries and more.
Try Casetext For Free
LAY, Chief Judge.
This action was originally commenced by the Rosebud Sioux Tribe, later joined by the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe, the Oglala Sioux Tribe and the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe (the Tribes), to enjoin the State of South Dakota from exercising civil and criminal jurisdiction over highways running through Indian land in the state. The district court upheld the state's assertion of jurisdiction. The Tribes have appealed; the state has cross-appealed the district court's finding that its jurisdiction is concurrent with tribal authorities. We find the district court erred. Absent tribal consent, we hold the State of South Dakota has no jurisdiction over the highways running through Indian lands in the state. We reverse and remand to the district court to enter judgment in favor of the Tribes.
While the terms "Indian land" or "reservation" are used to identify the geographic area of jurisdiction, the more accurate term is "Indian country," defined as:
Except as otherwise provided in sections 1154 and 1156 of this title the term "Indian country", as used in this chapter means (a) all land within the limits of any Indian reservation under the jurisdiction of the United States Government, notwithstanding the issuance of any patent, and, including rights-of-way running through the reservation, (b) all dependent Indian communities within the borders of the United States whether within the original or subsequently acquired territory thereof, and whether within or without the limits of a state, and (c) all Indian allotments, the Indian titles to which have not been extinguished, including rights-of-way running through the same.
18 U.S.C. 1151 (1988).
The Honorable Donald Porter, United States District Judge for the District of South Dakota.