Author: Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Forest County Potawatomi Seeks Environmental Lawyer

August 20, 2014Matthew L.M. Fletcher

The Forest County Potawatomi Community’s Attorney General Office in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, is seeking an experienced environmental attorney with eight or more years of relevant experience. Candidates should possess a broad range of experience in tribal, federal and state environmental laws, as well as experience in energy-related projects.

Qualified candidates must be licensed or eligible for licensure in Wisconsin.

Interested candidates should send a cover letter and résumé to Deputy Attorney General Jo Swamp via U.S. Mail (Forest County Potawatomi Community, 313 North 13th Street, Milwaukee, WI 53233) or E-Mail (jo.swamp@fcpotawatomi-nsn.gov).

North Carolia COA Decides Matter on Applicability of ICWA

August 20, 2014Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Here is the opinion in In re H.S.:

NC App Opinion

An excerpt:

DSS sent a standard letter of notice to the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) and did not receive a response. The juveniles’ guardian ad litem met with respondent father who stated that he was not Native American, and respondent mother who stated that she was part Cherokee. He met with the juveniles’ maternal grandmother who stated that she and her family were associated with the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians. The guardian ad litem gave the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians’ enrollment office the names of the juveniles’ parents, maternal grandparents, and maternal great grandparents. None of them
were enrolled members.

Opinion

Minnesota COA Affirms TRO against Western Sky; Rejects Immunity Defense

August 19, 2014August 19, 2014Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Here is the opinion in State ex rel. Swanson v. CashCall Inc.:

Minn COA Unpublished Opinion

An excerpt:

Respondent State of Minnesota brought a consumer-enforcement action against appellants CashCall, Inc., and WS Funding, LLC, in July 2013, alleging that appellants are using a third company, Western Sky Financial, LLC, as a front to make usurious loans to Minnesota consumers. The state moved for a temporary injunction, and appellants moved to dismiss the state’s complaint pursuant to Minnesota Rule of Civil Procedure 12.02(e). The district court granted the temporary injunction and denied the dismissal motion. Appellants challenged both rulings in these consolidated appeals. Because the district court did not err by denying the dismissal motion and did not abuse its discretion by granting the temporary injunction, we affirm.