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 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Here is the Washington Court of Appeals’ unpublished decision in Young v. Duenas.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.
The Navajo motion to intervene in this suit is here.
The updated materials:
Here are some of the materials in In re Platinum Properties, Inc. (Bankr. N.M.):
Bkrcy CT Order re Platinum Oil
Jicarilla Motion for Summary J
Other materials are here.
This dispute arises from the Poarch Band’s high stakes bingo operations. Poarch Band was not named.
The case is Hardy v. IGT (M.D. Ala.):
Multimedia Games Motion to Dismiss
Here (updated 8/24/11 with better pdf):
Seneca Telephone Cert Petition
Questions Presented:
1. Under federal preemption principles invoked in Rice v. Rehner, 463 U.S. 713 (1983), and specifically, the principles determinative on the applicability of the doctrine of tribal sovereign immunity in a regulatory context, did the Oklahoma Supreme Court err and issue a conflicting ruling with this Court’s decision in Rice when it failed to apply the preemption principles to the present cases?
2. Under the preemption principles invoked in Rice, as applied to the present cases, does the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. §§ 151et. seq.) delegate to the States the authority to exercise jurisdiction over tribal entities when Congress confers to the States the power to exercise jurisdiction over all intrastate communications?
Here are the materials in Vulgamore v. Tuba City Regional Healthcare Corporation (D. Ariz.):
You must be logged in to post a comment.