Here.
The Intercept News Profile on Tribal Sovereign Lending
Here.
Here.
Here is the opinion in Great Plains Lending LLC v. State of Conn. Dept. of Banking:
Briefs here.
We posted the materials on this case here.
Here are the materials in Manago v. Cane Bay Partners VII LLLP (D. Md.):
82 DCT Order Granting Motion for Stay
The briefs in Hengle v. Treppa are here.
Here is the unpublished opinion in Bacy v. Chickasaw Nation Industries Inc.
Briefs:
Lower court opinion here:
Here are the materials so far in Smith v. Martorello (D. Or.):
Here is the opinion in Swiger v. Rosette.
Briefs here.
Here are the materials in State of North Dakota by and through Workforce Safety and Insurance v. Cherokee Services Corp.:
Here are the materials so far in Allegheny Capital Enterprises LLC v. Cox (W.D. N.Y.):
An excerpt:
This is a diversity action commenced by a corporate entity affiliated with the Sac and Fox of Oklahoma Tribe (doing business in the Seneca Nation in New York) and a partnership doing business in the Seneca Nation. They claim that Defendants, officers of affiliated corporations of the Susanville Indian Rancheria (a Native tribe in California, also referred to as “SIR”), made misrepresentations to Plaintiffs that led to Plaintiffs entering into the tobacco manufacturing and distribution contracts with one of the affiliated corporations. Defendants represented that they had the authority to waive tribal sovereign immunity for the affiliate corporation and that the affiliate in fact waived that immunity. After an alleged breach of these contracts, Plaintiffs lodged claims against one of the affiliate corporations, but the corporation successfully asserted that it did not waive its tribal sovereign immunity. Plaintiffs then commenced this action against the officers; they did not name the corporation as a Defendant.
Before this Court is Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Docket No. 17) the Amended Complaint on sovereign immunity, jurisdictional, and pleading grounds. For the reasons stated herein, Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss is granted in part (dismissing claims against Defendants Stacy Dixon and Jolene Robles for lack of personal jurisdiction), denied in part (denying other grounds asserted). After resolution of this motion, Plaintiffs retain claims against Defendant Gretchen Cox.
Here are the materials in Grand River Six Nations Enterprises Ltd. v. Boughton:
You must be logged in to post a comment.