Montana Federal District Court Holds Crow Tribe Has Jurisdiction Over Electric Co-op

Previous post on this litigation here.

Federal Court Dismisses Tort Claim against Yocha Dehe Wintun Nation Gaming Company

Here are the materials in Nguyen v. Cache Creek Resort Casino (E.D. Cal.):

1 Complaint

24 Motion to Dismiss

25 Opposition

28 Reply

29 Motion for Sanctions

31 Magistrate Report

Federal Court Rejects Defenses of Tunica-Biloxi’s Sovereign Lending Company

Here are the materials in Dunn v. Global Trust Management (M.D. Fla.):

1 Complaint

13 Defendant Motions to Compel & for Judgment on Pleadings

18 Response

23 Reply

37 DCt Order

And here are the materials in McIntosh v. Global Trust Management (M.D. Fla.):

1 Complaint

24 Defendant Motion to Compel & for Judgment on Pleadings

31 Response

34 Reply

46 DCT Order

Materials in Law Firm Dispute over Nisqually Representation and Privileged Document

Here are the materials in Galanda Broadman PLLC v. Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP (Wash. Super. Ct.):

Complaint

Defendant’s Motion for Protective Order

Plaintiff’s Opposition to Motion for Protective Order

Reply in Support of Motion for Protective Order

Surreply in Opposition to Motion for Protective Order

Surreply to Surreply on Motion for Protective Order

Order on Motion for Protective Order

Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment

Plaintiff’s Opposition to Motion for Summary Judgment

Reply in Support of Summary Judgment

Order on Motion for Summary Judgment

Alex Skibine on the Tribal Right to Exclude Nonmembers

Alexander Tallchief Skibine has posted “The Tribal Right to Exclude Non-Tribal Members from Indian-Owned Lands,” forthcoming from the American Indian Law Review, on SSRN.

Here is the abstract:

In 1981, the Supreme Court issued its decision in Montana v. United States, severely restricting the ability of Indian Tribes to assume civil regulatory and adjudicatory jurisdiction over non-tribal members for activities taking place on non-Indian lands within Indian reservations. The Court in Montana stated that “it could readily agree” with the Court of Appeals’ holding that the tribe could regulate the conduct of non-member on tribal lands. Yet, twenty years later, the Court issued its opinion in Nevada v. Hicks holding that in certain circumstances, the jurisdiction of Indian tribes could also be limited even if the activities of the non-members took place on Indian-owned lands.

It has been almost twenty years since Hicks and because of the cryptic and fractured nature of that decision, the federal circuits are divided and still trying to figure out under what circumstances tribal civil jurisdiction over non-members should be restricted when these activities take place on Indian-owned lands.

In this Article, I argue that among all the possible interpretations of Hicks, the one adopted by the Ninth Circuit makes the most sense. Under that interpretation, the so-called Montana framework used to divest tribes of jurisdiction is not applicable to cases where a tribe has retained the right to exclude. I argue that Hicks can be reasonably conceptualized as endorsing the 9th Circuit methodology. However, I also argue that Hicks should have been decided as a state jurisdiction cases and not a tribal divestiture of inherent sovereignty case. Re-imagining Hicks as a state jurisdiction case would not have changed the outcome but would have avoided the last twenty years of confusion surrounding how Hicks should be interpreted.

Highly recommended!