James D. Griffith has published “Tribal Jurisdictions and UPL” in the March 2017 issue of Arizona Attorney.
Author: Matthew L.M. Fletcher
Federal Court Enjoins Arbitration in Employee Claim against Diné Development Corporation
Here are the materials in Diné Development Corporation v. Fletcher (D.N.M.):
Haudenosaunee CCTA Defendant May Not Use Indian Law as a Defense to Cigarette Trafficking Charge
Here are the materials in United States v. Tarbell (N.D.N.Y.):
Federal Court Allows Tribal NHPA Consultation Claims to Proceed in Freeway Challenge
Here are the materials in Coyote Valley Band of Pomo Indians of California v. United States Department of Transportation (N.D. Cal.):
73 Tribe Response to State Motion
Federal Court Rejects Sag Chip and Nottawaseppi Huron Potawatomi Motions to Intervene in Bay Mills Gaming Case
Here are the materials in Bay Mills Indian Community v. Snyder (W.D. Mich.):
47 Saginaw Chippewa Motion to Intervene
54 Michigan Motion for Summary J
54 Nottawaseppi Motion to Intervene
61 Michigan Opposition to SCIT Motion
62 BMIC Opposition to SCIT Motion
67 Michigan Opposition to NHB Motion
Federal Magistrate Finds Tribes May Not Be Represented by Non-Licensed, Pro Se Individuals
Eleventh Circuit Affirms Sanctions against Former Miccosukee Counsel
Here are the materials in Roman v. Lehtinen:
Calif. COA Decides Scope of Tribal Immunity Waiver Matter
Here is the unpublished opinion in Federal Indians of Graton Rancheria v. Kenwood Investments (Cal. Ct. App. — First Dist.):
Federated Indians of Graton Rancheria v. Kenwood Investments
An excerpt:
The trial court’s ruling that the Tribe waived sovereign immunity with respect to Amendment No. 2 is affirmed. We reverse the award of attorney fees. All other aspects of the judgment remain undisturbed.
Federal Court Dismisses Railroad Expansion Project Suit under Rule 19 for Failure to Join Indispensable Tribes
Here are the materials in Union Pacific Railroad v. Runyon (D. Or.):
Motion for TRO Rejected in Northern Arapaho Tribe v. LaCounte
Here are the materials in Northern Arapaho Tribe v. LaCounte (D. Mont.):
147 DCT Order Denying Motion for TRO
An excerpt:
Negotiations concerning the operation of the two courts are ongoing. Interactions between the courts are, and will be, varied, continual, and context-specific. An order from the Court would prove an undesirable and perhaps unwieldy solution, particularly as opposed to a protocol negotiated by the parties. The Court especially is not the proper arbiter for the dispute while the parties continue to negotiate an MOU. An MOU would provide a set protocol that the Court could evaluate. The addition of an MOU to the factual record would aid the Court in coming to a more accurate, useful resolution to the issues presented.
Turtle Talk 
You must be logged in to post a comment.