The 79 page PDF is here
Via Syracuse.com.
The 79 page PDF is here
Via Syracuse.com.
Details from the Syracuse.com article:
In a deal announced today, the Oneidas will give 25 percent of their gaming machine revenues to the state in exchange for exclusive rights to run casinos in a 10-county area of Central New York. Gov. Andrew Cuomo said that could mean $50 million a year for the state.
— Oneida and Madison counties agree to drop all legal action against the Oneidas over land and tax issues. The state will drop any support of those actions.
— No casinos would be built in the 10-county Central New York region, which includes Onondaga County. Vernon Downs, which opened in 2006, could continue to operate.
— The Oneidas, which have been granted 13,000 acres of tax-exempt trust land by the federal government, agree to cap their total trust land to 25,000 acres.
— Oneida County will get $2.5 million a year and Madison County will get $3.5 million from the state’s share of the Oneidas’ payments.
— The Oneidas will charge — and keep — the same sales taxes New York state charges. The Oneidas must use that money for the same kinds of services New York does.
— The nation will waive its sovereign immunity for the agreement, allowing New York to take the tribe to federal court in any disputes.
Here is the brief:
Here are the materials in Tavares v. Harrah’s Operating Co. (S.D. Cal.):
Here is today’s opinion in Shirk v. Lancaster:
An excerpt:
Loren Shirk seeks damages for allegedly negligent conduct by two Gila River Indian Community (“GRIC”) police officers. Because we conclude the trial court erred in granting Shirk’s motion to set aside the prior final judgment in favor of the officers, we reverse.
Briefs are here. Lower court materials here. Materials in related case against City of Chandler here. Here are the materials in the federal case dismissing a Federal Tort Claims Act action.
Here are the briefs in Cayuga Indian Nation v. Seneca County:
Cayuga Indian Nation Answer Brief
Lower court materials here.
Here are the materials so far in Phillips v. Salt River Police Dep’t (D. Ariz.):
Here is the opinion in State ex rel. Suthers v. Western Sky Financial LLC:
Order Granting Plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgment
An excerpt:
Accordingly, because Defendants’ business activities are conducted off-reservation and because Defendants solicit and advertise their business in Colorado and have, in fact, entered into loan agreements with Colorado citizens, Defendants are not entitled to tribal immunity or federal preemption. Rather, based on the undisputed facts before the Court, the Court concludes that Defendants are subject to the Code’s previsions and are thereby liable for any violation thereof. Specifically, because Western Sky is not, and has never been, licensed as a supervised lender, and because unlicensed lenders are not authorized to charge a finance charge on supervised loans, Defendants’ liability for restitution to consumers of all finance charges, including penalties, on all unlicensed loans made or collected with respect to Colorado citizens, is established as a matter of law.
And, on the sanctions:
Accordingly, because Defendants tribal immunity and federal preemption arguments lack substantial justification, the State is entitled to recover its attorney’s fees expended in replying to Defendants Response insofar as the State can establish the reasonable fees incurred in addressing Defendants’ tribal immunity and preemption arguments.
Here is the unpublished opinion in City of Duluth v. Fond du Lac Band of Lake Superior Chippewa (Minn. App.).
Here:
Questions presented:
The questions presented in this case are:
1. Whether Indian tribal immunity from suit allows the Indian tribe, a price fixing competitor, to be immune from federal anti-trust laws?
2. Whether the officials of an Indian tribe, acting beyond their authority, can be protected by tribal immunity when prospective relief is sought?
You must be logged in to post a comment.