Here is the order in Tulalip Tribes v. State of Washington:
2015-05-28 Dkt #57 Denial of Pet for Rehearing En Banc
En banc petition here.
Here is the order in Tulalip Tribes v. State of Washington:
2015-05-28 Dkt #57 Denial of Pet for Rehearing En Banc
En banc petition here.
Here is today’s order list.
Petition here.
Here is the order in the case now captioned Jamul Action Committee v. Chaudhuri (E.D. Cal.):
93 DCT Order Denying Injunction
Pleadings and prior orders here.
Here is the opinion in City of Duluth v. Fond du Lac Band of Lake Superior Chippewa II:
City of Duluth v. Fond du Lac Band of Lake Superior Chippewa 8th Circuit Decision
An excerpt:
We remand to the district court for its reconsideration of the Band’s Rule 60(b)(6) motion and direct it to consider all of the factors outlined here and in our prior remand order. Accordingly, the district court must give proper weight to the congressional intent that tribes be the primary beneficiaries of Indian gaming as well as other relevant factors we have previously identified. These include the facts that the City was on notice in 2009 of relevant actions and policies of the Gaming Commission and its warning in the 2011 Notice of Violation that the tribe would violate IGRA by making further rent payments to the city. As discussed in our prior City of Duluth opinion, such change in the governing law is also relevant to the question of whether an exceptional circumstance compels a grant of Rule 60(b)(6) relief. City of Duluth, 702 F.3d at 1154-55; see In re Pac. Far E. Lines, Inc., 889 F.2d 242 (9th Cir. 1989).
Briefs are here.
Here is the petition in Tulalip Tribes v. State of Washington:
Here are the materials in Harris v. San Manuel Band of Mission Indians (C.D. Cal.):
Here is the opinion in State of Wisconsin v. Ho-Chunk Nation:
An excerpt:
The State of Wisconsin sued the HoChunk Nation of Wisconsin to stop the tribe from offering electronic poker at its Madison gaming facility. The state maintained that the tribe was violating its agreement with the state to refrain from conducting Class III gaming at that location. The tribe responded that its poker is a Class II game that is permitted by law. The state prevailed in the district court, and the Ho-Chunk Nation now appeals. We reverse.
Briefs are here.
Lower court materials here.
Here are the new materials in Jamul Action Committee v. Chaudhuri (E.D. Cal.):
60-1 Jamul Action Committee Motion for PI
62 Tribal Opposition to Motion for PI
63 NIGC Opposition to Motion for PI
67 Jamul Action Committee Reply
75-1 Rosales & Toggery Motion to File Amicus
75-2 Rosales & Toggery Amicus Brief
You must be logged in to post a comment.