Here is the unpublished opinion in State v. Ziegler (Minn. Ct. App.):
Criminal
Federal Court Dismisses Habeas Petition Based on Murphy v. Royal as Time-Barred
Here are the materials in Barbre v. Whitten (E.D. Okla.):
Ninth Circuit Briefs in Yakama v. County Criminal Jurisdiction Appeal
Here are the briefs in Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Nation v. City of Toppenish:
Lower court materials here.
Mille Lacs Ojibwe Law Enforcement Suit against Mille Lacs County
Here are the materials in Mille Lacs Band of Ojibwe v. County of Mille Lacs (D. Minn.):
17 County Answer + Counterclaim
Federal Prisoner’s Effort to Invoke Murphy v. Royal Decision Fails
Ninth Circuit Affirms Major Crimes Act Conviction
Here is the opinion in United States v. Begay.
Ninth Circuit Partially Reinstates Section 1983 Claim against San Bernardino County Law Enforcement
Here is the opinion in Chemehuevi Indian Tribe v. McMahon.
An excerpt:
It is undisputed that the Sheriff cannot enforce regulatory traffic laws in “Indian country.” See 18 U.S.C. § 1162; 28 U.S.C. § 1360. “Indian country” includes, but is not limited to, land within the boundaries of a reservation. 18 U.S.C. § 1151. The issues for decision today are (1) whether the individual Tribe members and the Tribe can challenge the citations through a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action; and, if so, (2) whether Section 36 is Indian country. We hold that the individual plaintiffs, but not the Tribe, can challenge the citations under § 1983. And, we conclude that all the citations occurred within Indian country. We therefore vacate the district court’s judgment dismissing the complaint as to the individuals but affirm the judgment as to the Tribe.
Briefs here.
Federal Court Indian Country Determination Order [Ohkay Owingeh Pueblo]
Here are the materials in United States v. Vigil (D.N.M.):
Eight Circuit Affirms Conviction of Habitual D.V. Offender
Here is the opinion in United States v. Oka.
Federal Court Declines Jurisdiction over Nisqually Officials under Ex parte Young
Here are the new materials in Bell v. City of Lacey (W.D. Wash.):
53-bell-response-to-tribe-mtd.pdf
Prior pleadings, including the tribe’s motion on the pleadings (docket no. 36), are here.
You must be logged in to post a comment.