Here.
Spirit Lake Tribal Judge Removed in Aftermath of Child’s Death
Here.
Here.
Here are the new materials in Lomeli v. Kelly (Nooksack Tribal Ct.):
Second Emergency Motion for Temporary Restraining Order
Defendants’ Response in Opposition to Second Emer Motion for TRO
Reply in Support of Second Emergency Motion for TRO
Tribal Court Order Denying Second TRO Motion re Election
Tribal Court Order Denying Second TRO Re General Special Meetings
Here is the appellee brief in Thlopthlocco Tribal Town v. Stidham:
16-Answer brief of Defendant-Appellees
Opening brief here.
Lower court materials here.
Here are the briefs in North Dakota Electric Cooperative Inc. v. North Dakota Public Service Commission:
Here are the materials in Smith v. Parker (D. Neb.):
DCT Order Granting Nebraska Motion to Intervene
Opposition to Motion to Intervene
Nebraska Reply in Support of Motion to Intervene
Prior posts on this very interesting case are here and here.
Here.
Description:
This notice proposes procedures for an Indian tribe to request designation as a participating tribe under section 204 of the Indian Civil Rights Act of 1968, as amended, on an accelerated basis, pursuant to the voluntary pilot project described in section 908(b)(2) of the Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act of 2013 (“the Pilot Project”), and also proposes procedures for the Attorney General to act on such a request. This notice also invites public comment on the proposed procedures and solicits preliminary expressions of interest from tribes that may wish to participate in the Pilot Project.
David Wolitz has published “Criminal Jurisdiction and the Nation-State: Toward Bounded Pluralism” in the Oregon Law Review.
An excerpt:
In this Part, I argue that criminal jurisdiction on tribal lands already reflects major elements of the Bounded Pluralism approach I support, but that criminal justice in Indian Country could be improved if tribes had greater functional jurisdiction and if the federal government had greater supervisory authority to set fundamental-rights constraints on that jurisdiction.
Here are updated materials in State of Washington v. Yakama Nation Tribal Court (E.D. Wash.):
DCT Denying Motion to Dismiss for Ineffective Service
DCT Order Denying Motion to Compel Arbitration
Yakama Motion to Compel Arbitration
Yakama Motion to Dismiss for Ineffective Service
State Opposition to Yakama Motions
Yakama Reply on Ineffective Service Motion
Prior posts are here and here. The case is pending in the CA9 — materials here.
Here is the opinion in The Tulalip Tribes v. 2008 White Ford Econoline Van (Tulalip Tribal Court of Appeals).
You must be logged in to post a comment.