tribal courts – Page 129

Plains Commerce Bank Redux — Federal Court Orders Exhaustion on Claims Not Decided by Supreme Court

January 3, 2013Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here are the materials in Plains Commerce Bank v. Long Family Land and Cattle Co. (D. S.D.):

DCT Order Requiring Tribal Court Exhaustion

Long Family Tribal Court Complaint

Plains Commerce Federal Court Complaint [plus tribal court docs]

Plains Commerce Motion for TRO

Plains Commerce Motion for Summary J

Long Family Opposition

Plains Commerce Reply

You may recall from Justice Pommersheim’s opinion from way back in the last decade that Plains Commerce only challenged the discrimination claim against it, not the bad faith or breach of contract claims. And since the money damages verdict was a general verdict, any of the surviving claims may support the verdict.

Tribal Court Materials in Yakama v. State of Washington — Fuel Tax Dispute

January 2, 2013Matthew L.M. Fletcher3 Comments

Here:

Yakama v Haight Tribal Court Complaint (USDC)

Yakama v Haight Tribal Court TRO (USDC)

Yakama v Haight Tribal Court TRO Motion (USDC)

Related federal court materials are here.

Ninth Circuit Briefs in Challenge to Use of Uncounseled Tribal Court Convictions in Federal Habitual Offender Statute

December 31, 2012December 31, 2012Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Here are the materials in United States v. Bryant:

Bryant Opening Brief

US Appellee Brief [Bryant]

Bryant Reply

The CA8 and CA10 have rejected similar challenges, here.

Washington v. Yakama Tribal Court — Dispute over Tribal-State Fuel Tax Agreement

December 29, 2012Matthew L.M. Fletcher2 Comments

Here are the materials in State of Washington v. Yakama Nation Tribal Court (E.D. Wash.):

Washington Complaint

Washington Motion for PI

Yakama Cross Motion

News coverage here.

Profile on Navajo Chief Justice Herb Yazzie

December 28, 2012Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here. Via Pechanga.

This is interesting:

Another issue that was addressed this past year, said Yazzie, was how the tribal courts conduct hearings.

Most hearings are conducted in a combination of the English and Navajo language since elderly Navajos are more comfortable in the Navajo language while English is the language used for the court’s written records.

This causes problems, however, for the fact that court reporters, those who type the transcript of the trial, are more prone to knowing English than Navajo and when the case comes up for review, there would often be large parts of the hearings left empty with the reporter only saying that the testimony was in Navajo.

“What happens is that the most important part of the hearing and the place where fundamental Navajo law will most likely be discussed is not being translated,” Yazzie said.

He also pointed out that the tribe does not have a court reporter program of its own and often the parties are required to provide their own.

As a result, the members of the Navajo Supreme Court would have to go to the recording of the hearing and find the sections where Navajo was spoken and listen themselves to what was said, a process that is very time consuming.

Because of this, Yazzie put in for a federal grant of $200,000, which was approved, that will allow for the training of Navajo court reporters for the first time.

NYTs (Liptak) on SCT Cert Petition involving Cherokee ICWA Case

December 24, 2012December 24, 2012Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Here.

Federal Court Orders Exhaustion of Tribal Remedies in Shoshone-Bannock Zoning Case

December 21, 2012Matthew L.M. Fletcher2 Comments

Here are the materials in Evans v. Shoshone-Bannock Land Use Policy Commission (D. Idaho):

Dkt 20-1 Memorandum in Support of Motion to Dismiss (00049369)[1].PDF[1][1]

Evans Opposition

Evans Motion for PI

Dkt 49 – Response to Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction (00049977)[1][2][1]

Memorandum Decision & Order[2][2]

From Mark Echo-Hawk, atty for the Tribes:

The Shoshone-Bannock Tribes earned a winning decision in a hard-fought battle in the Idaho District Court today. The case was about exhaustion of tribal court remedies. The specific issue was whether the Tribes could enforce their land use laws against a non-Indian who built a single family residence on fee owned land on the Fort Hall Reservation. The Tribes attempted to enforce their building permit and business licensing laws against the builder and his contractors and when their efforts were ignored the Tribes filed suit in tribal court. The non-Indian landowner and contractors (backed by the surrounding county and non-Indian businesses) sued in federal court, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief. The Tribes filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that exhaustion of tribal court remedies was required. The non-Indian landowner and contractors argued the Reservation was ‘open’, or diminished, and that the tribes initiated the suit in bad faith. The case came down to whether it was plausible that tribal jurisdiction existed under Montana’s second exception. The federal district court found that the Reservation area in question was not open, that jurisdiction was plausible, and granted the tribes’ motion to dismiss, requiring exhaustion of tribal court remedies. Significantly, the Court confined the ‘catastrophic’ consequences language in Plains Commerce Bank relating to Montana’s second exception to land sale cases and distinguished the analysis required for land use cases. Here is the Court’s decision and the Tribes’ supporting briefing: (attached). The Tribes have been fighting with Power County for years about land use jurisdiction. There aren’t many favorable exhaustion cases that focus on Montana’s second exception, so this may be helpful to other Tribes.