Here:
2015 07 06 Statement of Issues
2015 07 06 Underlying Decision in Case–Memorandum Opinion
2015 12 03 Fond du Lac Band Amicus for Appellee Brief
Lower court briefs:
25 Duluth Motion for Summary J
26 US Cross Motion for Summary J
27-1 Fond du Lac Proposed Amicus Brief
DCT order Denying NIGC Motion to Dismiss
Complaint here.
Here is “Supreme Court case draws Tulalip’s attention.”
Here are the materials in Eagleman v. Rocky Boys’ Chippewa-Cree Tribal Business Committee (D. Mont.):
16-3 Eagleman Trial Court Opposition to Motion to Dismiss
16-5 Eagleman Tribal Appellate Brief
***
13th ANNUAL MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY INDIGENOUS LAW CONFERENCE
&
TRIBAL IN-HOUSE COUNSEL ASSOCIATION LAW CONFERENCE
@
MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW
INDIGENOUS LAW AND POLICY CENTER
NOVEMBER 3-4, 2016
EAST LANSING, MICHIGAN
***
TICA members interested in presenting on the following topics focusing on the tribal in-house practice of law are invited to submit proposals:
Deadline for formal proposals is February 1, 2016. Please keep proposals to 300 words or less.
Want to present but aren’t a member? Become a TICA member at www.tribalinhousecounsel.com.
MSU will cover reasonable travel expenses for speakers selected for the conference. We will be applying for CLE credits for the conference and so speakers must prepare written materials. MSU can provide research support for speakers in preparing materials, if requested.
Primary contacts:
Doreen N. McPaul, TICA President (Doreen.McPaul@tonation-nsn.gov)
Matthew L.M. Fletcher (matthew.fletcher@law.msu.edu)
Kathryn E. Fort (fort@law.msu.edu)
Sarah Donnelly (donnel93@law.msu.edu)
Here are the materials:
Administrative Law Judges Decision June 4, 2015
We posted on this case here.
Here, from Ronald Mann, is “Argument analysis: Justices dubious of tribe’s claim for equitable tolling in government contract dispute.”
An excerpt:
I could not have been more wrong. The Justices who spoke during yesterday morning’s argument were unremittingly dubious. It is not an exaggeration to say that there was not one comment from the bench during the entire argument that suggested any predilection, disposition, or expectation of a vote for the tribe. Although individual Justices offered a variety of other reasons to reject the tribe’s position, two general themes dominated the Justices’ shared expressions of skepticism.
Here are the materials in Public Service Co. of New Mexico v. Approximately 15.49 Acres of Land in McKinley County (D. N.M.):
Here are the materials in Grand Canyon Skywalk Development LLC v. Steele/Cieslak v. Hualapai Tribe (D. Nev.):
Here is the Supreme Court’s January sitting schedule.
Nebraska v. Parker briefs and materials are here.
Turtle Talk 
You must be logged in to post a comment.