The case is Lanphere v. Wright (CA9, no decision yet), and is a part of Paul Matheson’s ongoing efforts to avoid tribal, state, and federal law (here and here).
Here are the materials in this case:
The case is Lanphere v. Wright (CA9, no decision yet), and is a part of Paul Matheson’s ongoing efforts to avoid tribal, state, and federal law (here and here).
Here are the materials in this case:
Here is the opinion in Oklahoma ex rel. Edmundson v. Native Wholesale Supply.
An excerpt:
This appeal presents two dispositive issues for the court’s resolution: (1) Is an Oklahoma court a constitutionally sanctioned forum for the exercise of personal jurisdiction to adjudicate an alleged violation of a state statute by Native Wholesale Supply, a nonresident corporation that claims to have no minimum contacts with Oklahoma? and (2) Does federal law bar Oklahoma from enforcing the Complementary Act against Native Wholesale Supply, a tribally-chartered corporation wholly owned by an individual of Native-American ancestry? We answer the first question in the affirmative and the second in the negative.
Here is that order: DCT Order Amending Judgment.
Here is the order: Order on Civil Contempt
Here’s the short opinion in Red Earth LLC v. United States (W.D. N.Y.): Order – TRO (06-28-10).
And here’s the motion: Red Earth Motion for TRO
Here: Miccosukee Petition to Quash IRS Summons.
The case is captioned Miccosukee Tribe v. United States (S.D. Fla.).
Here is the opinion in State of Idaho v. Native Wholesale Supply (D. Idaho): Idaho v NWS DCT Order
The case is Maybee v. Idaho: Maybee Cert Petition
Lower court materials here.
Question presented:
In 1998, the Attorneys General of 46 states, five U.S. territories and the District of Columbia (the “Settling States”) settled various legal actions involving antitrust, product liability and consumer protection claims against the nation’s four largest tobacco companies. In exchange for substantial sums of monies, tied in part to sales volume, to be paid by settling manufacturers, each Settling State agreed to enact and diligently enforce a qualifying escrow statute that would artificially inflate costs for other tobacco manufacturers and which “effectively and fully neutralizes the cost disadvantage that the Participating Manufacturers experience vis-a-vis Non-Participating Manufacturers.” The question presented to the Court is whether a Settling State may prohibit the sale of certain brands of cigarettes manufactured by tobacco companies that have never been sued, or otherwise alleged or found culpable for conduct giving rise to liability.
Here is the order: DCT Order Striking Sag Chip Briefs
The remaining materials are here.
The opinion is State v. Maybee.
An excerpt:
In sum: The trial court had subject matter jurisdiction over those aspects of defendant’s activities that occur in Oregon. The court did not err in concluding that ORS 180.440(1)(b) applies to those activities and that, therefore, defendant cannot lawfully offer for sale or sell unlisted cigarettes to consumers in Oregon.
You must be logged in to post a comment.