Copy of the OIN/NY State/County Agreement

The 79 page PDF is here

Via Syracuse.com.

Oneida Indian Nation and State of New York Agreement on Wide Range of Issues

Here. Another article here.

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.

OSG Recommends Denial of Michigan’s Cert Petition in Vanderbilt Casino Dispute

Here is the brief:

12-515 Michigan v Bay Mills

State Law Employment Discrimination Suit against Harrah’s Rincon Casino & Resort Dismissed

Here are the materials in Tavares v. Harrah’s Operating Co. (S.D. Cal.):

DCT Order Granting Motion to Dismiss

Harrah’s Motion to Dismiss

Arizona COA Decides ISDEAA Immunity Case in Favor of Tribal Interests

Here is today’s opinion in Shirk v. Lancaster:

CV 12-0131

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.

Second Circuit Briefs in Cayuga Property Tax Dispute with Seneca County

Here are the briefs in Cayuga Indian Nation v. Seneca County:

Seneca County Opening Brief

Cayuga Indian Nation Answer Brief

Seneca County Reply

Lower court materials here.

Federal Court Allows Leave to Amend Civil Rights Complaint against Salt River Police re: Medicinal Marijuana Confiscation

Here are the materials so far in Phillips v. Salt River Police Dep’t (D. Ariz.):

DCT Order

Phillips Complaint

Denver District Court Rejects Western Sky Financial’s Assertion of Tribal Immunity (and Issues Sanctions for Asserting It)

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.

Minnesota COA Forces Fond du Lac Band Back into State Court to Deal with City of Duluth’s Contract Breach Claim

Here is the unpublished opinion in City of Duluth v. Fond du Lac Band of Lake Superior Chippewa (Minn. App.).

Miller v. Wright Cert Petition

Here:

Miller v Wright Cert Petition

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?
Lower court materials here.