Here:
Reed v Gutierrez Cert Petition
Lower court materials here.
Questions presented:
I. Should the doctrine of tribal sovereign immunity be abrogated?
II. Even if the doctrine of tribal sovereign immunity should not be abrogated, should it bar claims against Indian tribes or their employees for their off-reservation torts?
…reversing the district court below. Here is the unpublished opinion (thanks to R.S.): 11th Circuit decision.
The trial court now has ordered a briefing schedule to determine whether Hollywood Mobile Estates is entitled to an order restoring its lease and ordering the Tribe to allow them to re-enter its lands. Here: Omnibus Order
Appellate briefs are here.
The New Mexico Court of Appeals last May decided Mendoza v. Tamaya Enterprises, Inc. (opinion link here), holding in part that the New Mexico Indian gaming compact signed by the Pueblo of Santa Ana waived tribal immunity in state court to state-law dram shop actions. The New Mexico Supreme Court agreed to review this case.
As readers will know, we’ve been following multiple state cases involving tribal immunity from state law dram shop actions (e.g., cases involving the Mohegans, and tribes in Washington and Oklahoma; broader discussion here).
As Pechanga reported, one personal injury firm in ABQ suggests that Mendoza “significantly curtailed tribal immunity.” That seems to be an exaggeration — at least when it comes to the common law of tribal immunity — in that it appears likely that the New Mexico compacts include a sufficiently broad waiver. But that remains to be seen as well.
A truly remarkable opinion from an Iowa magistrate.
Here is the order:
As reported on Indianz….
Here are some of the relevant materials in this issue:
ALLTEL – GONZALES FIRM BRIEF FILED IN COURT (4-13-11).7
Here are the materials in Merit Management v. Ponca (N.D. Ill.):
Here are the materials:
Interesting case to watch in the California Court of Appeal. The case involves intertribal lending.
Here is the opening brief: YAN Opening Brief.
The YAN statement of the case:
May an Indian tribe avoid the jurisdiction of California courts, even after its chairperson (i) was authorized to negotiate and execute an agreement with a lender, (ii) executed an agreement with the lender containing a clear waiver of sovereign immunity, and (iii) warranted that the tribe had approved the agreement? The trial court below answered in the affirmative, dismissing a lawsuit for breach of a loan agreement, brought by plaintiff and appellant the Yavapai-Apache Nation (the “YAN”) against the defaulting borrower, defendant and respondent the Iipay Nation of Santa Ysabel (the “Iipay”).
The YAN asks this Court to correct this error. The law of California and of the United States has, for over a century, upheld the validity of acts of foreign officials and provided a presumption that such acts are valid; the burden of proof is on the party challenging the validity of such acts to show why they are not effective. This presumption, which applies equally to officials of Indian tribes, was not rebutted in this case. The Iipay authorized its chairperson to make an agreement with its lender (the rights to which the YAN succeeded), and all admissible evidence shows that the agreement was executed and approved by the Iipay. The Iipay breached the agreement. The Iipay should not be permitted to enjoy the benefits of an agreement until it defaults, and then avoid the consequences of its default by selectively disavowing the part of the agreement – the waiver of sovereign immunity and consent to jurisdiction in California – it finds inconvenient.
Here are the materials in Colmar v. Jackson Band of Miwuk Indians (E.D. Cal.):
Here is the opinion in New Jersey Sand Hill Band of Lenape and Cherokee Indians v. State of New Jersey (D. N.J.):
Turtle Talk 
You must be logged in to post a comment.