Here are relevant materials in United States v. Murphy (E.D. Okla.):
68 Motion to Dismiss — Statute of Limitations
Here are relevant materials in United States v. Murphy (E.D. Okla.):
68 Motion to Dismiss — Statute of Limitations
Here are the materials in Silva v. Farrish (E.D. N.Y.):
90 Objection to Magistrate Report
Prior briefs here.
Here are the materials so far in Fond Du Lac Band of Lake Superior Chippewa v. Wheeler (D. Minn.):
Here are the materials so far in Allegheny Capital Enterprises LLC v. Cox (W.D. N.Y.):
An excerpt:
This is a diversity action commenced by a corporate entity affiliated with the Sac and Fox of Oklahoma Tribe (doing business in the Seneca Nation in New York) and a partnership doing business in the Seneca Nation. They claim that Defendants, officers of affiliated corporations of the Susanville Indian Rancheria (a Native tribe in California, also referred to as “SIR”), made misrepresentations to Plaintiffs that led to Plaintiffs entering into the tobacco manufacturing and distribution contracts with one of the affiliated corporations. Defendants represented that they had the authority to waive tribal sovereign immunity for the affiliate corporation and that the affiliate in fact waived that immunity. After an alleged breach of these contracts, Plaintiffs lodged claims against one of the affiliate corporations, but the corporation successfully asserted that it did not waive its tribal sovereign immunity. Plaintiffs then commenced this action against the officers; they did not name the corporation as a Defendant.
Before this Court is Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Docket No. 17) the Amended Complaint on sovereign immunity, jurisdictional, and pleading grounds. For the reasons stated herein, Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss is granted in part (dismissing claims against Defendants Stacy Dixon and Jolene Robles for lack of personal jurisdiction), denied in part (denying other grounds asserted). After resolution of this motion, Plaintiffs retain claims against Defendant Gretchen Cox.
UPDATED:
45_ORDER_PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
Here is the minute order in State of Washington v. Vought (W.D. Wash.):
MINUTE ENTRY for proceedings held before U.S. District Judge John C. Coughenour- Dep Clerk: Gabriel Traber; Pla Counsel: Kristin Beneski, Lauryn Faas, and Lloyd Miller; Def Counsel: Brian Kipnis; CR: Nickie Drury; Time of Hearing: 9:00 AM; Courtroom: Zoom;Motion Hearing held on 2/12/2021 re 15 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction filed by Quileute Tribe Of The Quileute Reservation, Puyallup Tribe of Indians, American Historical Association, Tanana Chiefs Conference, Duwamish Tribe, Samish Indian Nation, Chinese American Citizens Alliance, Doyon Ltd, Confederated Tribes of the Chehalis Reservation, HistoryLink, Confederated Tribes Of Siletz indians, Confederated Tribes of the Grand Ronde Community of Oregon, Skokomish Indian Tribe, Confederated Tribes Of The Coos Lower Umpqua And Siuslaw Indians, Port Gamble S’Klallam Tribe, Muckleshoot Indian Tribe, Swinomish Indian Tribal Community, Spokane Tribe of Indians, Kalispel Tribe of Indians, Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Nation, OCA Asian Pacific Advocates Greater Seattle, Upper Skagit Indian Tribe, Wing Luke Memorial Foundation, Central Council of the Tlingit and Haida Indian Tribes of Alaska, Washington Trust for Historic Preservation, State of Oregon, Squaxin Island Tribe, Nooksack Indian Tribe, Quinault Indian Nation, Cow Creek Band Of Umpqua Tribe Of Indians, Association Of King County Historical Organizations, Suquamish Tribe, Nez Perce Tribe, Snoqualmie Indian Tribe, Historic Seattle, Hoh Indian Tribe, Museum Of History And Industry, The Klamath Tribes, State of Washington, Jamestown S’Klallam Tribe.
After hearing argument from Counsel, the Court informs the parties that an order granting the Plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction will be issued. (GT) (Entered: 02/12/2021)
Briefs are here.
Here is the opinion in People v. Caswell:
An excerpt:
Defendant, Walter Joseph Caswell, is a member of the Mackinac Tribe of Odawa and Ojibwa Indians (the “Mackinac Tribe”). In October 2018, a Department of Natural Resources (DNR) conservation officer cited defendant for spear fishing in a closed stream in violation of MCL 324.48715 and MCL 324.48711.1 Defendant moved to dismiss the charges on the ground that he was a member of an Indian tribe or band granted hunting and fishing rights by 1836 and 1855 treaties with the United States federal government. The Mackinac County district court granted defendant’s motion upon concluding that the Mackinac Tribe was entitled to rights under the relevant treaties. On appeal from the prosecutor, the Mackinac County circuit court reversed on the ground that the Mackinac Tribe was not federally recognized and that federal tribal recognition is a matter for initial determination by the United States Department of the Interior. We granted defendant’s delayed application for leave to appeal. For the reasons explained below, we vacate the circuit court’s order and remand the case to the district court for an evidentiary hearing consistent with this opinion.
Briefs:
Here are the materials in Apache Stronghold v. United States (D. Ariz.):
Here:
Santa Clara Pueblo v. Martinez in the Evolution of Federal Law
Richard B. Collins
Tribal Justice: Honoring Indigenous Dispute Resolution (Symposium Keynote Address)
Deb Haaland
Native American Oral Evidence: Finding a New Hearsay Exception
Max Virupaksha Katner
Tribal Opposition to Enbridge Line 5: Rights and Interests
John Minode’e Petoskey
You must be logged in to post a comment.