Here is the opinion in Stockbridge-Munsee Community v. State of Wisconsin.
Briefs here.
Here is the opinion in Stockbridge-Munsee Community v. State of Wisconsin.
Briefs here.
Here is the petition:
Question presented:
1. What facts must a plaintiff allege to state a claim for malicious prosecution against a California county and its sheriff under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, especially considering the heightened pleading standard this Court established in Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009)?
2. When a county sheriff is the country’s chief law enforcement officer, can a plaintiff hold a California County liable under Monell v. New York City Department of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658,694 (1978), by pleading he was wrongfully prosecuted based on an investigation led by the sheriff?
Here are the materials so far in Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians v. Bernhardt (D.D.C.):
1-1 Solicitor Opinion on Bay Mills
1-6 July 2017 Interior Decision
16-1 Saginaw Chippewa Motion to Intervene
18-1 Detroit Casinos Motion to Intervene
20 Nottawaseppi Huron Band Motion to Intervene
28 Sault Tribe Opposition to Intervention Motions
29 Federal Opposition to Detroit Casinos Motion to Intervene
31 Saginaw Chippewa Reply in Support of 16
32 Detroit Casinos Reply in Support of Motion to Intervene
33 NHBPI Reply in Support of Motion to Intervene
Prior posts on the Lansing/Wayne County casino proposals are here.
Here is today’s order list.
Cert stage and other materials in McNeal are here.
Here is the petition captioned Comanche Nation of Oklahoma v. Zinke [but presumably will switch to Comanche Nation of Oklahoma v. Bernhardt]:
Companche v Zinke Cert Petition
Question presented:
Whether the “former reservation” exception permitting lands acquired by the United States in trust for an Oklahoma Tribe after the effective date of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act of 1988 to be devoted to gaming purposes, is applicable to lands not subject to Tribal jurisdiction prior to the acquisition.
Lower court materials here.
Here are the materials in Pueblo of Isleta v. Lujan Grisham (D.N.M.):
67-1 Santa Ana Pueblo et al MSJ
84 Pueblos Motion for Protective Order
91 Pueblos Reply in Support of 84
Complaint here.
Here are the materials in City of Council Bluffs v. United States Department of Interior (S.D. Iowa):
I know it’s complicated. For the most part, the court’s decision favors Ponca and NIGC….
Here:
Question presented:
Whether the Bankruptcy Code abrogates the sovereign immunity of Indian tribes.
Lower court materials here.
You must be logged in to post a comment.