California COA Dismisses Coyote Valley Band Appeals under Disentitlement Doctrine

Here are the materials in Findleton v. Coyote Valley Band of Pomo Indians:

A156459 [opinion]

Findleton Brief A156459

Findleton Brief A158171 A158172 A158173

Tribe Brief A156459

Tribe Brief A158171 A158172 A158173

Tribe Brief A159823

Tribe Reply A156459

Tribe Reply A158171 A158172 A158173

Federal Court Orders Additional AAA Arbitration in Dispute over Wakpamni Corporation’s Payday Lending

Here are the materials in Easeley v. WLCC II (S.D. Ala.):

1 Notice of Removal

1-2 Complaint

1-4 Raines Dec

2 WLCC Motion to Dismiss

6 Response

6-1 Arbitration Award

6-2 WLCC Motion to Dismiss Arbitration Proceeding

6-3 AAA Statement of Claim

10 Reply

13 Magistrate Report

14 WLCC Objection

15 Easley Response

16 Reply

18 DCt Order

Split Ninth Circuit Panel Decides Brice v. Plain Green LLC

Here is the opinion.

Here are the briefs:

Plain Green Brief 19-17414 – 19-17477

Plain Green Brief 19-15707

Amicus Brief

Brice Brief 19-17414 – 19-17477

Brice Brief 19-15707

Reply

Lower court materials here.

Eighth Circuit Decides Chase v. Andeavor Logistics L.P.

Here is the opinion.

Briefs:

Lower court materials here. We’ll update those later.

Grand River Six Nations Enterprises Ltd. v. Boughton Cert Petition

Here:

GRE Six Nations Cert Petition

Questions presented:

1. Whether Connecticut impermissibly regulates or controls conduct beyond the boundaries of the State in violation of the dormant Commerce Clause when, as a condition of allowing a manufacturer’s products to be sold in the state, Connecticut forces the manufacturer to obtain and provide private sales and shipping information possessed by non-Connecticut distributors doing no business in Connecticut and having no nexus with Connecticut.

2. Whether Connecticut violates Due Process protections when it bans a manufacturer’s products from being sold in the state, if the manufacturer fails to obtain and provide to Connecticut private sales and shipping information possessed by non-Connecticut distributors relating to their distribution of products in jurisdictions other than Connecticut.

3. Whether Connecticut violates the Supremacy Clause when, as a condition of allowing a manufacturer’s products to be sold in the state, Connecticut forces the manufacturer to obtain and provide private sales and shipping information possessed by non-Connecticut distributors who conduct no business in Connecticut nor distribute the manufacturer’s products to, or in, Connecticut.

Lower court materials here.

Federal Court Dismisses Challenge to Wind Energy Project under Rule 19, Tribal Immunity

Here are materials so far in Backcountry Against Dumps v. Bureau of Indian Affairs (S.D. Cal.):

75-1 Tribe Motion to Dismiss

84 Opposition

87 Reply

93 DCT Order

Prior post here.

Michigan SCT Holds KBIC Workers Did Not Violate State Tobacco Law When Transporting Unstamped Smokes

Here is the opinion and the materials in People v. Magnant:

Mich SCT Opinion

Davis Brief

Magnant Brief

State Brief

Magnant Reply

Davis Reply

Prior post here.