Here:
NCAI Cert Stage Amicus Brief in Patchak Case
Here:
Here:
Here:
State of Michigan Appellee Brief
Here is a pic of the now-shuttered BMIC Vanderbilt Casino:
And some lovely intertribal rhetoric:
The court has dismissed the plaintiff’s claims that were not appealed to the tribal appellate court for failure to exhaust tribal remedies. Other claims remain extant due to a waiver of immunity.
Here are the materials:
DCT Granting Motion to Dismiss in Part
RST 2d Supplemental Memorandum
Prior materials are here.
Here is the news article, via Pechanga.
And the materials so far:
Wash SCT Accepting Direct Review
Lower court materials:
Here:
Here are the materials in Stillaguamish Tribe of Indians v. Pilchuck Group II L.L.C. (W.D. Wash.):
DCT Order Granting Stillaguamish Tribe Motion
Stillaguamish Motion for Summary J
Pilchuck Group Motion for Summary J
Here is the Washington Court of Appeals’ unpublished decision in Young v. Duenas.
Here is an excerpt:
Chris Young appeals the trial court’s CR 12(b)(1) dismissal of his claims for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. He argues that the defendant tribal police officers present at the time of his brother’s death are not protected by the Puyallup Tribe’s sovereign immunity and that the state should have subject matter jurisdiction over the case. Because the officers acted in their official capacity and within the scope of the tribe’s authority, the trial court properly dismissed based on sovereign immunity. We affirm.
Here are the updated materials in Vann v. Salazar (D. D.C.):
Cherokee Nation Response to Vann Motion
The Vann motion is here.
Here is today’s opinion. An excerpt:
We conclude that the Indenture constitutes a management contract under IGRA and that, as a condition of its validity, it should have been submitted to the Chairman of the NIGC for approval prior to its implementation. The parties’ failure to secure such approval renders the Indenture void in its entirety and thus invalidate s the Corporation’s waiver of sovereign immunity. The district court therefore correctly determined that it was without jurisdiction with respect to Wells Fargo’s motion for the appointment of a receiver.
We further conclude that the district court should have permitted Wells Fargo leave to file an amended complaint to the extent that it presented claims for legal and equitable relief in connection with the bond transaction on its own behalf and on behalf of the bondholder. Upon the filing of such a complaint, the district court should address the issue of whether, now that the Indenture has been determined to be void, Wells Fargo has standing to litigate claims on behalf of the bondholder. The court also must determine whether the collateral documents, when read separately or together, waive the sovereign immunity of the Corporation with respect to any such claims. If such a waiver is found, the court may proceed to determine the merits of those claims.
You must be logged in to post a comment.