Here is the opinion of the court in United States v. Evanston. Here is a related unpublished opinion on the same conviction.
The crime occurred on the Colorado River Indian Tribes reservation.
Here is the opinion of the court in United States v. Evanston. Here is a related unpublished opinion on the same conviction.
The crime occurred on the Colorado River Indian Tribes reservation.
Here’s the news story, and here’s the bill.
Here is the opinion in United States v. Wisecarver: Wiscarver CA8 Opinion.
An excerpt:
Marc Wisecarver fired a rifle shot through the front grill of a government owned pickup truck in the custody of a Bureau of Indian Affairs (“BIA”) land assessor. After we vacated his initial conviction for depredation of government property, a second jury found him guilty of the same charge, and the district court sentenced him to 36 months’ imprisonment. We affirm the conviction and term of imprisonment, but we vacate three special conditions of supervised release and remand to the district court for an individualized assessment with respect to those special conditions.
As Indianz reported, the Village of Hobart’s crusade against the Wisconsin Oneidas hit a roadblock. Here is the opinion in Village of Hobart v. Brown County.
Hobart’s challenge to the tribe’s trust land acquisition is here.
Here is the tribe’s challenge to Hobart’s policy on stormwater fees.
Here is our original post on the Brown County case.
And here is the case on Hobart’s covenants against tribal ownership of land.
Here is the opinion in State v. Good Plume (h/t Legal Profession Blog).
An excerpt:
Defendant, a Native American, argues that he was denied due process in sentencing when the judge voiced a racial stereotype to describe his violent behavior under the influence of alcohol. The judge used the term “go native.” In defendant’s view, the remark was “improper” and “gave the impression of bias and prejudice” entitling him to resentencing before another judge. Although the term was ill chosen, upon examining the judge’s entire remarks, we detect no risk of actual bias based on objective and reasonable perceptions, and thus, we affirm.
Here is a link to the opinion.
In 2009, Mr. Quinn, an aboriginal from Sechelt Indian Band, was pulled over by two Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) officers on reserve land owned in fee simple by the Band. They ticketed him for (ironically enough) displaying Canadian flags instead of license plates. He did not have car insurance. Quinn claimed that he would not sign the violation ticket nor would he obtain insurance, because, he claimed, he was operating a “state” vehicle immune from provincial requirements. The RCMP impounded his car and Quinn brought suit, claiming the officers exercised unlawful authority to ticket him and to impound his car. Here’s the case.
If you can’t foresee how this one ultimately played out in court, keep reading. [hint: Quinn loses]
Glen Bannon, 57, of Echo Bay, Ontario, pled guilty to breach of trust (s. 122) and accepting bribes (s. 426 (1)(a)(ii)). Bannon received benefits totalling $142, 437.48 in exchange for purchases totalling $2,354,118.35 made to a car dealership (Highland Ford) by way of funds from the Anishinabek Police Service, of which he was the Chief of Police.
Here’s the decision.
Bannon received a year in prison, while David Worth, the owner of Highland Ford, was fined $100,000 ($86,956.52 plus a victim fine surcharge in the amount of $13,043.48).
Between 1999 and 2004, Highland Ford gave the following rewards, advantages or benefits, (goodies!) directly or indirectly, to Glen Bannon:
Here is that order in United States v. Tsosie (D. N.M.):
Here is the opinion in United States v. Mackety.
You must be logged in to post a comment.