De Castro Law Office

"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."

"Doesn’t appear been my attorney since February and I don’t even know what he looks like hasn’t shown discovery file hasn’t 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."

"One of the best attorneys in SD."

"I hired many several years ago to represent me in a criminal case. he was hard to reach and even more difficult to meet with. did a terrible job with my case. he didnt even finish but took a job as a prosecutor in lake county instead. then wouldn't take my calls or show up for court. sent me a letter said it was a conflict of interest. but he still stuck me with 5000 in attorneys fees. do not hire this man he will cheat you and laugh all the way to the bank. scumbag. Rusty Caldwell wrong again mr de Castro. you didnt even finish my case. I did go to jail. you wouldn't know because you weren't in court. and I'm having trouble getting my gun rights restored. not a favorable outcome at all. for a case you should have won. and I dont know what registry you are referring to I was charged with DUI. once again, do not hire this man he is a crook"