Here:
transcript of proceedings 6-22-12
Exhibits to the Comanche Nation’s Motion to Dismiss filed
Prior materials here.
Tribal Codes
New York AD Holds State Law Rather than Tribal Law Applies in Construction Accident
Here is the opinion in Hill v. Seneca Nation of Indians.
Fletcher on NAICJA/Getches’ “Indian Courts and the Future”
I posted my University of Colorado Law Review symposium paper, “Indian Courts and Fundamental Fairness: Indian Courts and the Future Revisited.” Here is the abstract:
This paper comes out of the University of Colorado Law Review’s symposium issue honoring the late Dean David H. Getches. It begins with Dean Getches’ framework for analyzing Indian courts. I revisit Indian Courts and the Future, the 1978 report drafted by Dean Getches, and the historic context of the report. I compare the 1978 findings to the current state of Indian courts in America. The paper focuses on the ability of Indian courts to successfully guarantee fundamental fairness in the form of due process and the equal protection of the law for individuals under tribal government authority is uniquely tied to the legal infrastructure available to the courts. Congress tried to provide the basic framework in the Indian Civil Rights Act, and many of the most successful tribal justice systems have borrowed from ICRA or developed their own indigenous structure to guarantee due process and equal protection. I argue that ICRA is declining in importance as Indian tribes domesticate federal constitutional guarantees by adopting their own structures to guarantee fundamental fairness.
The Colorado Law Library recently archived Indian Courts and the Future and its two appendices (here and here). Check them out. The Indian law portion of the symposium is here.
Hopi Tribe Moves to Dismiss Dish Network Effort to Avoid Tribal Jurisdiction
Here is the motion in Dish Network v. Tewa (D. Ariz.):
The complaint is here.
News article on Skagit GOP’s anti-Indian platform
California Court of Appeals Decides Tribal Corporate Immunity Case
Here is the opinion in American Property Management Corp. v. Superior Court (with concurrence):
An excerpt:
In 2003, Sycuan Tribal Development Corporation (STDC), a corporation chartered under Sycuan’s tribal laws, invested in the purchase of the U.S. Grant Hotel in downtown San Diego (the hotel) but created several layers of California limited liability companies to stand between it and the entity that took ownership of the hotel.
Specifically, U.S. Grant, LLC — a California limited liability company — purchased the hotel in 2003. U.S. Grant, LLC is wholly owned by its sole member Sycuan Investors – U.S. Grant, LLC (Sycuan Investors, LLC), a California limited liability company. Sycuan Investors, LLC, in turn, is wholly owned by its sole member American Property Investors – U.S. Grant, LLC (American Property Investors, LLC), a California limited liability company. American Property Investors, LLC is wholly owned by its sole member STDC. All three limited liability companies were organized in late 2003 in connection with the transaction to purchase the hotel.
Federal Court Dismisses Claims Relating to Bison Round-Up at Crow
Here are the materials in Siemion v. Stewert (D. Mont.):
Here is a description of the case from the MJ order:
Plaintiff Nelvette Siemion (“Siemion”), appearing pro se, filed her Amended Complaint on January 30, 2012, listing 14 counts. Am. Cmplt. (Court Doc. 32). This action stems from three general allegations that one or more of the named Defendants wrongfully (1) deprived Siemion of Crow Tribal land leases to which she was entitled; (2) rounded up, seized, and impounded about 200 head of Siemion’s bison causing her to incur penalties and costs to recover them; and (3) killed, butchered, and distributed the meat from three of Siemion’s bison bulls. The claims and the defendants against whom Siemion asserts them are discussed in more detail below.
New Student Scholarship on Tribal Waivers of Immunity by Unauthorized Tribal Officials
Adam Keith, a Penn Law student, has published “Who Should Pay for the Errors of the Tribal Agent?: Why Courts Should Enforce Contractual Waivers of Tribal Immunity When an Agent Exceeds Her Authority under Tribal Law.” The article appears in the Penn Journal of Business Law. The article criticizes a recent Sixth Circuit decision on the immunity of Section 17 corporations.
Here is a snippet:
When tribal commercial organizations engage in commercial dealings, their non-tribal counterparties almost universally insist that a waiver of tribal immunity be included within any contractual agreement so as to retain their access to state and federal courts should they decide to litigate any commercial disputes against the tribal entity. In a recent case, the Sixth Circuit weakened the reliability of these waivers by ruling that the court will not enforce such a waiver when a tribal agent assents to one while possessing only apparent authority in the eyes of the tribal counterparty but not actual authority under tribal law. This comment will argue that there are three reasons that courts should enforce such waivers: because doing so is consistent with the principles associated with waivers of tribal immunity; because it will not have deleterious effects on tribal sovereignty; and because it will improve the efficiency of tribal commercial dealings with non-tribal entities.
Opening Ninth Circuit Brief Grand Canyon Skywalk Case
Diné CARE File Another Suit to Stop Coal Mine at Navajo Mine
Here is the complaint in Diné Citizens against Ruining Our Environment v. United States Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (D. Colo.):
Our posting on the related and previous suit is here.
Turtle Talk 
You must be logged in to post a comment.