Na Iwi O Na Kupuna O Mokapu v. John Dalton
United States District Court for the District of Hawaii
894 F. Supp. 1397 (1995)
- Written by Kelli Lanski, JD
Facts
John Dalton, the secretary of the Department of the Navy (defendant), awarded a contract to the Bernice Pauahi Bishop Museum (Bishop) (defendant) to prepare an inventory of human remains that had been disinterred from the Mokapu Peninsula in Hawaii, pursuant to the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA). NAGPRA was created to ensure that Native American remains and artifacts remained in the custody of Native American tribes and organizations. The purpose of the inventory was to obtain an accurate list of human remains and funerary objects and determine a minimum number of individuals represented by the remains. During the inventorying process, Bishop staff held several meetings with individuals from Native American organization Hui Malama I Na Kupuna O Hawai’i Nei (Hui Malama) (plaintiff) to discuss the process and provide preliminary reporting. After the inventory was done, Hui Malama sued Dalton and Bishop on behalf of the human remains, called Na Iwi in Hawaiian, alleging that Dalton and Bishop violated NAGPRA by failing to return the Mokapu remains quickly enough and by conducting additional scientific research without permission. NAGPRA did not specifically allow for a cause of action filed by human remains. Dalton and Bishop moved for summary judgment, asserting, among other arguments, that human remains did not have standing to sue.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Ezra, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 810,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.