Here:
CA6 Order Vacating and Remanding
The court held moot the Saginaw Chippewa motion for abeyance.
Materials here.
Here:
CA6 Order Vacating and Remanding
The court held moot the Saginaw Chippewa motion for abeyance.
Materials here.
Here are the materials so far in Sun v. Mashantucket Pequot Gaming Enterprise (D. Conn.):
Here is an excerpt from the complaint:
On or about December 24, 2011, plaintiff Cheung Yin Sun, along with two other playing partners, plaintiffs Long Mei Fang and Zong Yang Lei, deposited approximately $1.6 million dollars in shared front money with defendant Foxwoods Resorts Casino in order to play Mini-Baccarat (Exhibit A, 1). Plaintiffs won approximately $1.148 million in chips that evening while playing Mini-Baccarat on the graveyard shift. Plaintiffs won the $1.148 million honestly by using an advantage play strategy known as “edge sorting,” which will be described in more detail below. However defendants Foxwoods and Foxwoods Management refused to redeem the chips/winnings because they accused plaintiffs of cheating.
Updated materials:
22 Connecticut Motion to Dismiss
Docket entry 37:
ORDER granting 31 Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction; granting 20 Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings. The Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings (doc. no. [22] ) and Motion to Dismiss (doc. no. 31 ) are both granted absent objection because the plaintiffs have failed to take the necessary steps to establish the court’s personal jurisdiction as to any of the defendants. Accordingly the case is dismissed. SO ORDERED by Judge Janet C. Hall on 5/29/2015. (Lewis, D) (Entered: 06/01/2015)
Here:
SCIT Surreply re NLRB Remand Motion [& In Support of Abeyance Motion]
(Now) complete briefing here:
Sag Chip Motion to Hold Appeal in Abeyance
Here are the materials in Gatzaros v. Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians:
The parties have litigated in bankruptcy court, too — see here.
Here:
The Honorable Paul A. Gosar
Representative-United States House of Representatives
The Honorable Raul M. Grijalva
Representative-United States House of Representatives
The Honorable Kevin Washburn
Assistant Secretary-Indian Affairs-United States Department of the Interior
View Testimony
Mr. Jonodev Osceola Chaudhuri
Vice Chairman-National Indian Gaming Commission
View Testimony
Ms. Anne-Marie Fennell
Director-Natural Resources and Environment-United States Government Accountability Office
View Testimony
The Honorable A.T. Stafne
Representative-United States House of Representatives
View Testimony
The Honorable Michell Hicks
Principal Chief-Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians
View Testimony
Mr. Ernest L. Stevens, Jr.
Chairman-National Indian Gaming Association
View Testimony
The Honorable Diane Enos
Chairman-Assiniboine & Sioux Tribes of the Fort Peck Indian Reservation
View Testimony
The Honorable Ned Norris, Jr.
Chairman-Tohono O’odham Nation of Arizona
View Testimony
The Honorable Jerry Weiers
Mayor-City of Glendale
View Testimony
Here are the updated materials in Cherokee Nation v. Jewell (N.D. Okla.):
News coverage of the oral argument is here.
Here are the materials in State of Wisconsin v. Ho-Chunk Nation (W.D. Wis.):
An excerpt:
The state of Wisconsin has brought this case to enjoin defendant Ho–Chunk Nation from offering electronic poker at Ho–Chunk Gaming Madison (formerly DeJope), the Ho–Chunk Nation’s gaming facility in Madison, Wisconsin. The question raised in the parties’ cross motions for summary judgment is whether Ho–Chunk Nation’s poker game violates a compact with the state. The answer to that question turns on whether electronic poker qualifies as a “class II” or “class III” game under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act. Class III games are prohibited by the compact except under certain conditions not present in this case, but class II games are permitted. Because I conclude that Ho–Chunk Nation’s electronic poker game is a class III game, I am granting the state’s motion for summary judgment and denying Ho–Chunk Nation’s motion.
Here are updated materials in State of Michigan v. Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians (W.D. Mich.):
53-1 Michigan Motion to Revise DCT Order Dismissing Tribal Officials
55 Michigan Response to Motion to Dismiss
Sault Tribe’s motion is here.
You must be logged in to post a comment.