tribal courts

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

 

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

Matthew 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

Matthew 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

Matthew 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

Matthew 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

Matthew 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.