Here are the materials in Atlantic Richfield Co. v. United States (D. N.M.):
34 Laguna Construction Co Motion to Dismiss
36 Laguna Pueblo Motion to Dismiss
47 AR Response to Pueblo Motion
71 DCT Order Granting US Motion
73 DCT Order Partially Granting Pueblo Motion
75 DCT Order Denying LCC Motion
Complaint here.
Here is the unpublished opinion in Longo v. Seminole Indian Casino-Immokalee.
Briefs are here.
Here are the materials in Estom Yumeka Maidu Tribe of the Enterprise Rancheria v. State of California (E.D. Cal.):
14-1 Tribe Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings
Here are the materials in Nawls v. Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Community Gaming Enterprise – Mystic Lake Casino (D. Minn.):
Here are the materials in Northern New Mexicans Protecting Land Water and Rights v. United States (D. N.M.):
Here are the materials in Matt v. United States (D. Mont.):
45 DCT Order Granting Motion to Quash
An excerpt:
Matt seeks documents in the possession of the Fort Belknap Community Council. (Doc. 26-1 at 2.) In order to satisfy Matt’s request, Council would be required to take affirmative action to produce tribal documents. (Doc. 37 at 3.) If the Court granted Matt’s request the judgment would “interfere with public administration” of the tribe and would “compel [the sovereign] to act.” Maxwell, 708 F.3d at 1087-90. The recovery sought in this case would operate against the tribe. Matt should not be allowed to “circumvent tribal immunity” by addressing the Subpoena Duces Tecum to Mark Azure instead of to the tribe.
An excerpt:
The Council entered into an ISDEAA contract for the maintenance of the roads on Matt’s property. The Council and its tribal members should be deemed part of the BIA and subject to the FTCA. The Council and its tribal members should be subject to discovery related to the construction and maintenance of the roads covered by the ISDEAA contract.
Here are the materials in Dillon v. BMO Harris Bank (N.D. Okla.):
3 Otoe-Missouria Tribe of Indians Motion to Quash
Materials and documents for the leave to appeal in Michigan’s Supreme Court:
Defendant/Appellant’s Application for Leave to Appeal
Plaintiff-Appellee’s Brief in Opposition to Application for Leave to Appeal
Defendant/Appellant’s Brief In Reply To Opposition
Amicus brief in support of petition from State Bar’s American Indian Law Section
Our motion for leave to file and our lodged amicus brief in support of petition
Opinion and Order Granting Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis and Dismissing Complaint in the matter of Whiting v. Eagle Bear (Jan. 22 2016).
William Whiting claimed constitutional violations, but the district court found it did not have jurisdiction to hear the case and defendants are immune. Whiting must use administrative remedies.
Here is the opinion in Brown v. Officer K. Robertson #Y234 (Ariz. Ct. App.):
Turtle Talk 
You must be logged in to post a comment.