Here is the court’s opinion in Baker v. Greyeyes.
From the court’s syllabus:
The Court grants a writ of habeas corpus filed after 6 months incarceration by an inmate serving time on multiple sentences in which it had not been specified how the sentences would run, holding that, when not stated in a judgment, multiple sentences are presumed to run concurrently.
Here:
Questions Presented:
1. Does Lapides v. Board of Regents of the University System of Georgia, 535 U.S. 613 (2003), provide a basis for finding a waiver of tribal sovereign immunity where an Indian Tribe has expressly waived sovereign immunity, is sued in state court, removes to federal court, and then asserts sovereign immunity based on the Tribe’s concealment of the fact that the Tribe did not comply with the Secretary of the Interior’s lease approval requests?
2. Does Justice Brandeis’ opinion in Turner v. United States, 248 U.S. 354 (1919). support the concept of tribal sovereign immunity or should that accidental doctrine, questioned in Kiowa Tribe of Oklahoma v. Manufacturing Technologies, Inc., 523 U.S. 751 (1998), be revisited and discarded.
3. Does the Indian Civil Rights Act, Title 25 U.S.C. § 1302(a)(5) and (a)(8) create an implicit cause of action permitting the Tribe to be sued for the taking of property without due process of law?
Navajo Nation Law CLE Conference
Friday, November 30, 2012 / 8:30 a.m. – 5:15 p.m.
Sandra Day O’Connor College of Law at Arizona State University / Armstrong Hall / Great Hall/ Tempe campus
Indian Legal Program at the Sandra Day O’Connor College of Law at ASU and the National American Bar Association of Arizona are hosting a conference that will offer a survey of ethical, social, cultural, employment, economic development, political and legal issues affecting the Navajo Nation. It is ideal training for tribal court advocates, tribal court practitioners, tribal court prosecutors, tribal court defenders, tribal council members, Indian law attorneys and attorneys practicing on and near the Navajo Nation Reservation, tribal liaisons, government legislators, Navajo Nation Bar members, law students, as well as teachers/professors and students of American Indian studies.
This conference may qualify for up to 8 CLE credit hours for Navajo Nation Bar Association, and New Mexico MCLE credits, including 2 credit hours Navajo Ethics* – approval pending. The State Bar of Arizona does not approve or accredit CLE activities for the Mandatory Continuing Legal Education requirement. This activity may quality for up to 8 hours toward your annual CLE requirement, including 2 hours of professional responsibility.
http://conferences.asucollegeoflaw.com/navajolaw/
Sessions include: Continue reading
I have posted the data so far in chart form for my ongoing study on the impact of American Indian legal scholarship on the judiciary. The draft paper, which will be available on a limited basis at the Berkeley conference on Phil Frickey’s legacy, is called “American Indian Legal Scholarship and the Courts.” The data is available on SSRN here.
Here is the abstract for the appendices:
“American Indian Legal Scholarship and the Courts” is a forthcoming article that includes charts representing data on the citation patters of federal, state, and tribal courts to American Indian legal scholarship (defined as law review and similar publications focused on American Indian law). This paper includes three appendices in the form of simple charts that organize that data. Appendix 1 is a chart of Supreme Court opinions dating back to 1959 that include citations to Indian law review articles. Appendix 2 is a chart of law review articles cited in lower federal, state, and tribal courts since 1959, organized by article. Appendix 3 is the same chart reversed, with the chart organized by case first.
Here:
Training Announcement (Trial Advocacy)-Chinle, AZ
Training Announcement (Trial Advocacy)-Seattle, WA
Prior announcement was here.
Here are the materials in New Gaming Systems Inc. v. National Indian Gaming Commission (W.D. Okla.):
NIGC Final Decision — New Gaming & Sac and Fox
New Gaming Administrative Appeal
DCT ORDER affirming NIGC decision
Also:
Here is the opinion in In re M.C.
The court’s syllabus:
The Court denies a petition for writ of habeas corpus, holding that 9 NNC 1310(A), which provides for a child’s right to assistance of counsel at “all proceedings alleging the delinquency of a child” does not attach at a detention hearing that must be held within 24 hours of detention, on the basis that detention hearings address further detention, not the merits of the charges, to which young men and women are able to speak for themselves.
Here is the opinion in Jasper v. Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians:
News coverage here (“Court rules tribe can’t take land targeted for casino”).
Turtle Talk 
You must be logged in to post a comment.