tribal courts

Update in Columbe v. Rosebud Sioux Tribe: Tribal Court Has Jurisdiction to Rule on Gaming Management Contract

Matthew L.M. Fletcher2 Comments

Here are the materials in Columbe v. Rosebud Sioux Tribe (D. S.D.):

DCT Order Granting RST Motion

Columbe Motion for Summary J

RST Cross Motion for Summary J

Columbe Response

An excerpt:

Colombe now asks this Court to rule on the sole remaining issue from this Court’s September 23, 2011 Opinion and Order: Whether the Tribal Court had jurisdiction to hold that the oral modification to the NIGC-approved management contract was void. Colombe argues that the NIGC has the sole, exclusive authority to determine whether modifications to NIGC-approved management contracts can have any legal effect. Doc. 49 at 6-7. Colombe also argues that Defendants’ Tribal Court suit is prohibited because IGRA does not authorize a private cause of action. Doc. 49 at 8. Defendants counter that the Rosebud Sioux Tribal Supreme Court had jurisdiction to rule on the legal validity of the oral, unapproved modification to the approved management contract after Colombe raised the modification as a defense in the Tribe’s underlying contract suit. Doc. 59; Doc. 60. Defendants also assert that its Tribal Court suit is not for a “claimed IGRA violation” and therefore does not need to be authorized by the IGRA. Doc. 57 at 19.

Here are the materials on the Sept. 2011 order, and on the motion for reconsideration.

 

 

Federal Court Complaint Filed Alleging Turtle Mountain Tribal Court “Bad Faith”

Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Here are the materials in Knight v. Vondal (D. N.D.):

Knight v Vondal Complaint

Tribal Court TRO

Land Sale Dispute on Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe Reservation Remanded to State Trial Court

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

What a case — McGuire v. Aberle. Law profs looking for a good fact pattern check these first two paragraphs out:

In 1967, Raymond and Margaret Becker’s eight children each inherited an undivided one-eighth interest in patented fee land located within the exterior boundaries of the Cheyenne River Sioux Indian Reservation. None of the Beckers are Indians. In 2006, one of the Becker children sold her undivided one-eighth interest to Patrick and Carletta Aberle. Patrick is a member of the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe. Carletta is a non-Indian. Patrick subsequently conveyed his interest to his son. Before this suit, Patrick’s son transferred the property back to Patrick. As a result, Patrick and Carletta each own an undivided one-sixteenth interest.

Sometime after Patrick and Carletta acquired their interests, a dispute arose between the Aberles and the Becker children who still retained an interest in the property. The Becker children commenced this action in circuit court, seeking a sale of the entire property. The Aberles counterclaimed for partition. Patrick also moved to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Patrick argued that because he was a member of the Tribe, and because he had become an owner of an undivided one-sixteenth interest in property on the Reservation, the circuit court possessed no subject matter jurisdiction to adjudicate the dispute between the parties. Aberles contended the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribal Court had jurisdiction.

On remand, the trial court will have to answer the following riddle:

But the problem in this case is that the record does not reflect how and under what authority the land in question was initially alienated. That is significant because counsel for the Tribe and Aberles contended at oral argument that this land could not have been alienated under the General Allotment Act of 1887 (the Cheyenne River Sioux Reservation was not created until 1889). Counsel also argued that we should read the 1908 Act differently than the General Allotment Act. Moreover, counsel for the Becker children agreed that the nature of the patent and the Act under which it was granted is important to the jurisdiction question. But that information is not known or reflected in this record.

Federal Court Orders Exhaustion of Tribal Remedies in Pojoaque Tribal Gaming Contract Dispute

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here are the materials in Fine Consulting, Inc. v. Rivera (D. N.M.):

DCT Order Granting Rivera Motion

Fine Consulting Complaint

Rivera Motion to Dismiss

Fine Consulting Opposition

Rivera Reply

If anyone doubts the impact of good Indian law scholarship, then look here. Sarah Krakoff’s excellent Colorado Law Review article Tribal Civil Judicial Jurisdiction Over Nonmembers: A Practical Guide for Judges is all over this opinion.

Federal Court Order Memorializing Grant of Injunction against Yakama Tribal Court in Washington-Yakama Tax Dispute

Matthew L.M. Fletcher4 Comments

Here is the order:

DCT Order Granting Washington’s Motion for PI

Briefs and materials here (federal) and here (tribal).

Colville Tribal Court of Appeals Arguments at Gonzaga Law on Jan. 25

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

COLVILLE TRIBAL COURT OF APPEALS TO HEAR CASE JAN. 25 AT GONZAGA UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW

Oral Arguments in Barbieri Courtroom Open to Public

SPOKANE, Wash. – The Colville Tribal Court of Appeals will hear oral arguments at Gonzaga University School of Law’s Barbieri Courtroom at 10 a.m., Friday, Jan. 25. The hearing, which is open to the public, is part of Gonzaga Law School’s Centennial celebration. The panel will ask if the lower tribal court abused the power of discretion in blocking further prosecution of a dismissed case. The Law School is located at 721 N. Cincinnati St.

All three of the justices presiding in this case are Gonzaga Law School alumni.

“The chance to see the highest court of the Confederated Colville Tribes in action is a unique one for both our students and the community,” said Gonzaga Law School Dean Jane Korn. “All of our students learn about the state and federal courts, but this is an incredible opportunity for them to see a tribal court of appeals in action and to learn from that experience.” The Barbieri Courtroom displays the bronze seals of nine regional tribes. The seals were installed in 2004 to honor Gonzaga’s relationships with the sovereign Native American tribes, each with its own legal and judicial system.

The case being heard, Colville Confederated Tribes v. G. Stensgar / C. Signor (case No. AP12-007/008), addresses an issue of the discretionary power of a judge when a complaint is not filed within 72 hours of arrest.

In two separate cases, defendants were arrested, cited, and appeared in court as they promised when posting bail. The prosecutor, who did not receive documents from the jail, was not prepared to proceed. The judge dismissed the case “with prejudice,” which means the prosecutor would not be allowed to prosecute the defendants for those crimes at a later date. The prosecutor’s office appealed the decision, arguing the decision, which blocks the cases from further prosecution, was an abuse of the court’s discretionary power.

The Colville Tribal Court of Appeals has been in existence for more than 50 years. In 1995, the court became a constitutionally separate branch of the Colville Tribal government and is the highest court for issues of Colville Tribal law. The court hears between 15 and 25 appeals from the lower courts each year.

The Court of Appeals last visited Gonzaga Law School in February of 2009 for an “en banc” panel (a case heard in front of all justices of the court) in a criminal case.

This year marks Gonzaga Law School’s Centennial and Gonzaga University’s 125th anniversary. Many events are planned throughout the year to mark the anniversaries. More information can be found at www.gonzaga.edu/125.

For more information, please contact Andrea Parrish, digital media specialist at Gonzaga Law School at (509) 313-3771 or via e-mail [aparrish@lawschool.gonzaga.edu] or Jane Smith, Administrator and Law Clerk of the Court, at (509) 634-2507 or via email [Jane.Smith@colvilletribes.com]

Mashpee Wampanoag Tribal Court Decisions Online

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here.

 

Navajo SCT Issues Two Opinions (on School District Elections and Family Law)

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here they are:

Mae Y. Sandoval v. Navajo Election Administration and Concerning Leo Johnson, Jr., Real Party in Interest. Opinion. Reversing the OHA, the Court finds that Dr. Leo Johnson was not qualified to run for school board member in the Shiprock Associated Schools,. Inc. (SASI) as he was an employee of that organization, which disqualified him from running. The election statute regarding sworn qualifications must be read as mandatory whether a challenge is raised before or after an election because an unqualified candidate may not hold elected office. (December 18. 2012).

Glenyal Bahe v. Adam Platero. Opinion. The Court affirms the Crownpoint Family Court’s dismissal of plaintiff’s child custody and support action concerning a Navajo family in deference to a previously filed action in the Bernalillo district court. The Court emphasizes that inherent tribal sovereignty provides Navajo courts with exclusive jurisdiction over matters concerning internal relations between tribal members, and that the courts must be watchful that they do not unnecessarily concede concurrent jurisdiction in such matters. Nevertheless, 7 NNC 253a(E) enables our courts to defer to another forum in the interest of substantial justice and in the spirit of comity. (December 20. 2012).

Federal Court Denies Navajo Rule 19 Motion in Diné CARE v. US Office of Surface Mining Reclamation

Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Here is the order:

DCT Order Denying Navajo Motion to Dismiss

Briefs are here.

Federal Court Dismisses Thlopthlocco Tribal Town v. Stidham et al.

Matthew L.M. Fletcher5 Comments

Here are the materials in Thlopthlocco Tribal Town v. Stidham (N.D. Okla.), a case involving the authority of the Muscogee (Creek) Nation courts’ authority to hear internal government disputes of the Thlopthlocco Tribal Town:

DCT Order Granting Stidham Motion

Stidham Motion to Dismiss

Exh. 1 Thlopthlocco Tribal Town v. Anderson Complaint

Exh. 2 Thlopthlocco Tribal Town App for Interlocutory Appeal

Exh. 3 Thlopthlocco Tribal Town App for Mandamus

Exh. 4 Defendants Cross Claim

Exh. 5 Thlopthlocco Tribal Town Conditional Motion to Dismiss

Thlopthlocco Tribal Town Motion for PI

Thlopthlocco Tribal Town Response to Motion to Dismiss

Stidham Response to Motion for PI

Thlopthlocco Tribal Town Reply

Stidham Reply