High court sides with Crow tribe member in hunting dispute

Court News

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

  • 'Magic' campaign lands 17 black women on Houston courts

    'Magic' campaign lands 17 black women on Houston courts

    Court News 11/08/2018

    The Houston area's courts are going to be a lot more diverse thanks to a group of 17 African-American women and their "magic."The women, who were part of an effort dubbed the "Black Girl Magic" campaign, all won races Tuesday to be judges in various ...

  • The Latest: International court 'undeterred' by Bolton

    The Latest: International court 'undeterred' by Bolton

    Court News 09/11/2018

    The International Criminal Court says it will continue to do its work "undeterred," despite National security adviser John Bolton's condemnation.olton asserted Monday the court "threatens American sovereignty and U.S. national security interests."The...

  •   German court rules in broadcaster Nazi camp spat with Poland

    German court rules in broadcaster Nazi camp spat with Poland

    Court News 08/20/2018

    A German court has ruled that public broadcaster ZDF can’t be forced to post a specifically worded apology demanded by a Polish court for erroneously calling two World War II Nazi camps “Polish death camps.”ZDF used that wording in ...

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.