Here:
Oral argument audio and video.
Lower court materials here.
Here are the materials in the matter captioned by the court Citizens for a Better Way v. Dept. of Interior (E.D. Cal.):
98-1 UAIC Motion for Summary J
99-1 Citizens for a Better Way Motion for Summary J
102-1 Colusa Motion for Summary J
119-1 Enterprise Rancheria Motion for Summary J
120-1 Enterprise Rancheria Motion to Strike Guerrero Dec
121-1 Enterprise Rancheria Motion to Strike Meister Dec
126 UAIC Opposition to Summary J Motion
127 UAIC Opposition to Motion to Strike
128 Citizens for a Better Way Opposition to Summary J Motion
130 Colusa Opposition to Summary J Motion
131 Colusa Opposition to Motion to Strike
135 US Reply re Motion to Strike
136 Enterprise Rancheria Reply re Summary J Motion
137 Enterprise Rancheria Reply re Motion to Strike Guerrero
138 Enterprise Rancheria Reply re Motion to Strike Meister
158 DCT Order Granting Motions to Strike
Materials in the TRO stage of this litigation are here.
Here are the briefs:
Lower court materials here.
Here are more materials in the case captioned Cayuga Nation v. Tanner (N.D. N.Y.):
38 DCT Order Denying Unity Council Motion to Intervene
41 Plaintiffs Reply in Support of PI
42 Plaintiffs Response to Tanner Motion to Dismiss
50 DCT Order Dismissing Claims
52-1 Motion for Reconsideration
Apparently, the Halftown faction (the plaintiffs here) is continuing the fight for gaming, while the Unity Council group has been dismissed from the case. We posted materials on this case here.
Here are the materials in State of California v. Iipay Nation of Santa Ysabel (S.D. Cal.):
15-1 Iipay Nation Motion to Dismiss
24 DCT Order Denying Motion to Dismiss
TRO stage materials are here.
Here is the opinion in Big Lagoon Rancheria v. State of California:
From the court’s syllabus:
The en banc court affirmed the district court’s summary judgment in favor of a tribe that alleged that the State of California had failed to negotiate in good faith for a gaming compact under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act for Class III gaming on a parcel of land taken into trust for the tribe by the Bureau of Indian Affairs.
Rejecting California’s argument that the tribe lacked standing to compel it to negotiate in good faith under the IGRA, the en banc court held that the State’s argument amounted to an improper collateral attack on the BIA’s decisions to take the parcel of land into trust and to designate the tribe as a federally recognized Indian tribe. The en banc court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in failing to grant a continuance for additional discovery under Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(f).
The en banc court dismissed the tribe’s cross-appeal as moot.
Links to oral argument and briefs here.
Here are the materials so far in State of Kansas v. National Indian Gaming Commission (D. Kan.):
Complaint 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.
You must be logged in to post a comment.