Here is the opinion in Mendoza v. Tamaya Enterprises, Inc. News article here.
Along with Oklahoma, New Mexico is one of the few states to allow state law dram shop actions against tribal businesses. And, along with Oklahoma, the reasoning behind the decision is tied to the state-specific jurisdictional scheme created in the tribal gaming compacts.
Turtle Talk 
This was predictable given the language of the compact. I just wonder how this language made it into the compact despite the “brain power” of the attorneys involved on the side of the tribes when the compacts were negotiated. There is an even more troublesome provision regarding the State having jurisdiction over “gaming related crimes” that was used in one instance I know of to provide the basis for state criminal jurisdiction over what should have been a Major Crime under Federal law. This involved a collusive theft exceeding 7 figures where the perpetrators were prosecuted and sentenced in state court. I would argue that only Congress can pass legislation ceding federal jurisdiction over major crimes and P.L 280 is the only way that can be achieved other than special legislation. Under IGRA the tribe can only share jurisdiction that it posesses. Even if the Tribes did posess concurrent jurisdiction with the Feds to prosecture major crimes, they still could not transfer Federal Major Crimes Jurisdiciton to the State outside of the P.L 280 processes. The Feds still have jurisdiction over major cimes on the reservations/pueblos and should not be allowed to aborgate the responsibility without going through the P.L. 280 processes which would require a referendum of the tribe. Since when is a million dollar theft a “gaming related crime” and not a “Major Federal Crime”.
I agree NdNlawyer, someone’s counsel dropped the ball on this one. The sad thing is though, States will play hardball and threaten long drawn out compact negotiations unless the tribes concede to these little tidbits. Since revenue is crucial to self-determination, lawyers (unfortunately Native lawyers too) will advise to concede, thinking whats the harm, a case or two throughout the compact. Well, States work round the clock trying to figure out ways of eroding tribal sovereignty, and they’ve figured it out. They do it by incremental tactics, little here little there, then some higher courts comes along and declares “All gone.” The tribe(s) in this compact negotiation should have held firm and said “good faith” state, good faith negotiating does not include holding out for little nuances of jurisdiction that threat our (the tribe’s) sovereignty. I wish our councils and corp boards would see this more and stand strong, but again, usually the threat of stalling or lowering revenue forces them into decisions they don’t want to make. I agree with the Major Crimes posit, but I believe that isn’t the issue here The compact waiver applies to “protection of visitors,” personal injury suits , and compensatory damages. The tribe(s) has to carry minimum insurance if sued for $50 mill Occurance/Aggregate. Section 8 also has language that sez no shift to state/fed court if against the IGRA. I would have fought that point, though admitedly I don’t know enough to know how far it could have got. Since it seems someone at the Casino was indeed negliegent in serving these folks, I would have probably busted a move to settle anyways and AVOIDED the state being able to even make a judgement. We know how that one always goes, you do not bring a suit for chicken meat into the Foxes Court, they’ll eat it every time. Nice reading your positions though. Peace, Mainee Skeej