Here is the opinion in Cachil Dehe Band of Wintun Indians of the Colusa Indian Community v. State of California.
Here are the briefs.
Here is the opinion in Cachil Dehe Band of Wintun Indians of the Colusa Indian Community v. State of California.
Here are the briefs.
Here are the materials in Ysleta del Sur Pueblo v. NIGC (D. D.C.):
James Schaap has published The Growth of the Native American Gaming Industry: What Has the Past Provided, and What Does the Future Hold? (Schaap on the Growth of Indian Gaming) in the American Indian Quarterly. Here is a quick excerpt:
What can we say about the phenomenal growth of the Native American gaming industry? In order to evaluate the industry’s development we first need to consider its economic, social, and political history. Then, building on this foundation, it will be possible to predict, strictly from an observational perspective, what the future may hold for Native Americans.
Here are the materials (argued last week, the panel is WILLIAM C. CANBY, JOHN T. NOONAN and MARSHA S. BERZON):
City of Vancouver Opening Brief
Lower court materials here.
Here: Sandia Cert Opp.
Petition and other materials here.
Here is the opinion in Cardona v. Kreamer.
Earlier materials here.
Here is the press release: 2% first half 2010 press release 07-30-10
A Michiana Indian tribe is ready to try and launch a ‘satellite.’
A satellite casino, that is.
The tribal owners of the Four Winds Casino in New Buffalo today voted to expand gaming operations by pursuing a satellite facility near Hartford.
Hartford is in Van Buren County and has its own exit off I-94. Hartford is about five miles north of Coloma, and 45-miles away from New Buffalo.
The Pokagon Band of Potawatomi Indians has had state permission to pursue the satellite project since October of 2008 when it renegotiated a gaming compact with Michigan.
The Hartford area casino would be much smaller than the Four Winds in New Buffalo.
Bill Rice has posted his fine paper, Some Thoughts on the Future of Indian Gaming, published in the Arizona State University Law Journal, Vol. 42, No. 1, p. 219, Spring 2010. Here is the abstract:
In surveying the historical development of Indian gaming, it is apparent that several pre-IGRA legal principles had a significant impact upon the development of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA) and the relevant caselaw. Since the enactment of the IGRA in 1988, litigation in the federal appelllate courts, has resulted in sufficient decisional law to be instructive in its interpretation, and to prognosticate the future to some degree. In addition to historical and developmental issues, primary areas of litigation have included: 1. Management contracts, and issues relating to their approval, enforcement, and cancellation. 2. Game classification issues in class II (bingo and related games) and class III Indian gaming (generally thought of as “casino” games). 3. Tribal-State compacting regarding class III Indian gaming establishments, and the interplay between the compacting process and the game classification process. 4. The reacquisition of land by Indian tribes, and the eligibility of such lands for gaming purposes pursuant to IGRA.
Given an understanding of the issues raised by the case law in these areas, and related litigation, additional issues may be identified which may be litigated or otherwise determined in the future. This enables one to identify certain policy issues which should be considered by the National Indian Gaming Commission, Congress, the Tribes, and States in the future.
You must be logged in to post a comment.