Here is the opinion in Outsource Services Management v. Nooksack Business Corporation:
And the briefs:
Outsource Services Management, Respondent v. Nooksack Business Corporation, Appellant
Case Number – 67050-6
Hearing Date – 09/20/2012
Here is the opinion in Outsource Services Management v. Nooksack Business Corporation:
And the briefs:
Outsource Services Management, Respondent v. Nooksack Business Corporation, Appellant
Case Number – 67050-6
Hearing Date – 09/20/2012
You’ll recall the panel opinion here found that tribal employees have no official immunity for official actions.
Here are the en banc petition materials:
Yocha Dehe Wintun Nation Amicus Brief
Maxwell Response to En Banc Petition
Maxwell Supplemental Authorities Letter
The petition is still pending, but perhaps the Miller v. Wright amendment is evidence that the Ninth Circuit could take this case for en banc review.
Here is the amended opinion.
Our post on the prior opinion is here.
The single amendment is to eliminate this footnote:
4. Neither in the district court nor on appeal do Miller, Lanphere, and Matheson allege a separate and distinct claim for injunctive or declaratory relief against the officials qua officials. See Maxwell, —- F.3d —-, 2012 WL 4017462, at *11. We therefore express no opinion as to the viability of such a claim against the officials themselves.
An en banc petition in the Maxwell case is currently pending.
Here is the order:
DCT Order Granting Washington’s Motion for PI
Briefs and materials here (federal) and here (tribal).
Here are the materials in Sanderford v. Creek Casino Montgomery (M.D. Ala.):
Here are the materials in Chavez v. Morongo Casino Resort & Spa (Cal. App. 4th):
Here are the materials in Aguayo v. Salazar (S.D. Cal.):
Here:
You must be logged in to post a comment.