Here is the opinion:
Here are the briefs.
tribal courts
Illinois State Bar Findings in Disciplinary Action against Former Little River Band Attorney
Available here (Illinois website), and pdf:
This document details the findings of fact, and makes recommendations for discipline. We posted relevant documents on this matter here and here and here.
The six counts are as follows (details are in the document linked above):
COMPLAINT
Jerome Larkin, Administrator of the Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission, by his attorney, Meriel Coleman, pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 753(b), complains of Respondent, Joseph Henry Martin, who was licensed to practice law in the State of Illinois on May 2, 1995, and alleges that Respondent has engaged in the following conduct which tends to defeat the administration of justice or to bring the courts or the legal profession into disrepute:
Seminole Tribe Sued in Federal Court under ICRA by Business Partner for Failure to Establish a Tribal Court
Here is the complaint in South Florida Entertainment Inc. v. Seminole Tribe of Florida (S.D. Fla.):
Here’s the first paragraph:
1. This action, in material part, seeks declaratory relief wherein SFLE and individual Plaintiffs seek to have this Court declare that the Tribe has violated the Indian Civil Rights Act, 25 U.S.C. § § 1301 and 1302 (the “ICRA”) and to order further necessary and proper relief in favor of SFLE pursuant to 28 US.C. §2202. Among other things, SFLE believes and contends that the Tribe is incapable of meeting its quasi-Constitutional obligation to provide due process of law under the ICRA due to its admitted failure to create and maintain a tribal court system or any other legitimate forum for ensuring compliance with the ICRA and the Constitutional-like protections it is intended to grant to members and non-Tribal members, alike. SFLE also seeks a declaration concerning whether the Tribe’s administration of the issuance of Tribal Liquor Licenses comports with or violates federal law, namely 18 U.S.C. §§1154, 1156 and 1161. SFLE also seeks a judicial declaration that the Tribe has contractually waived sovereign immunity with respect to disputes involving the Tribe, the Seminole Hard Rock Hotel and Casino which it operates and owns, SPR, and its commercial tenants and subtenants, like SFLE as well as the individual Plaintiffs. Moreover, each Plaintiff alleges that the Tribe solely controls SPR, as indicated in several pieces of correspondence with Plaintiffs. Proof of such control is reflected in Plaintiff’s Composite Exhibit “C” where the Defendant Tribe specifically alleges that it does business as SPR. The individual’s Plaintiffs, PENDLETON and PRIOLO, also allege damages for various tort claims against both Defendants, as stated within the various Counts herein below.
White Mountain Apache Tribe v. Pequot Health Care — Defendant Motion to Dismiss Denied
Here is the opinion out of the Mashantucket Pequot tribal court:
White Mountain Apache Tribe v Pequot Health Care
An excerpt:
The Plaintiff, the White Mountain Apache Tribe, alleges that it entered into an agreement with the Mashantucket Pequot Tribal Nation and its wholly owned subsidiaries, Pequot Health Care and Pequot Plus Health Benefits, to serve as the “third party administrator” of the Plaintiff’s self-funded tribal health plan. The plaintiff also alleges that it entered into the agreement based on the Defendants’ representations that it had the knowledge, skill, experience and expertise necessary to serve as a third party administrator of the Plaintiff’s health plan, and that it would achieve costs savings for the plan. The Plaintiff further alleges that the Defendants negligently and improperly administered the plan, failed to disclose to the Plaintiff that it had or was negligently and improperly administering the plan, and that as a result of the Defendants’ conduct, the Plaintiff suffered substantial losses to its self insured benefits plan.
Miccosukee Supplemental Brief in Support of Cert Petition in Miccosukee v. Kraus-Anderson
Sprint Communications v. Native American Telecom & Crow Creek Sioux Tribal Court
Here is that opinion:
Sprint v Native American Telecom — Denial of PI.
An excerpt:
Defendant, Native American Telecom (NAT), moves for a preliminary injunction to enjoin plaintiff, Sprint Communications Company, from withholding interstate switched access charges that NAT has already billed or will bill to Sprint in the future. Sprint resists the motion. The motion is denied.
Bradley v. Tulalip Tribes: Dismissal of Tort Claim under Tribal Tort Claims Ordinance
Here are the materials from the Tulalip Tribal Court (miigwetch to M.T.):
Pltf’s Opp to Motion to Dismiss
Wisconsin COA Decides First Case under State Tribal Court Transfer Rule
Here is the opinion in Kroner v. Oneida Seven Generations Corp. (and here are the briefs we have):
John Kroner appeals an order transferring his civil suit to the Oneida Tribal Judicial System pursuant to WIS. STAT. § 801.54, titled, discretionary transfer of civil actions to tribal court. Kroner argues the circuit court erred because the record did not support its determination that the tribal court had concurrent jurisdiction. Kroner further contends the court failed to properly consider the statutory discretion factors. We conclude the record supports the circuit court’s exercise of discretion, and affirm.
Tenth Circuit Affirms Injunction against Tribal Court in Crowe & Dunlevy PC v. Stidham
Here is the opinion. And the briefs.
An excerpt:
Judge Gregory R. Stidham of the Muscogee (Creek) Nation District Court appeals the district court’s order granting preliminary injunctive relief to Crowe & Dunlevy (“Crowe”) and denying Judge Stidham’s motion to dismiss. Crowe & Dunlevy, P.C. v. Stidham, 609 F. Supp. 2d 1211, 1227 (N.D. Okla. 2009). Because the district court correctly denied Judge Stidham’s motion to dismiss and did not abuse its discretion in granting the preliminary injunction, we affirm.
Federal Court Dismisses Action to Enjoin Tribal Court Action for Failure to Exhaust Tribal Remedies
Here are the materials in City of Wolf Point v. Mail (D. Mont.):
City Motion for Default Judgment
DCT Order Dismissing City Complaint
From the opinion:
This action, alleging jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, was brought by the City of Wolf Point, Mayor DeWayne Jager, Wolf Point Police Commissioners, Wolf Point City Council, Police Chief Jeff Harada, and Troy Melum (collectively “City”) against Julianne Mail (“Mail”) and Alyssa Eagle Boy (“Eagle Boy”). It was filed on the heels of commencement of suit by Mail and Eagle Boy in Fort Peck Tribal Court against the Plaintiffs here, seeking compensatory damages, punitive damages, legal fees, and costs for claims under tribal law arising from an alleged altercation between Mail, Eagle Boy, and Troy Melum, who is characterized as a City of Wolf Point Animal Control Officer. Plaintiffs seek a judgment of dismissal of the pending tribal court case on subject matter jurisdiction grounds.
Turtle Talk 
You must be logged in to post a comment.