Very interesting case, captioned Ho-Chunk Nation v. Money Centers of America, Inc.

An excerpt:

The Court has jurisdiction over the plaintiff‟s breach of contract claim as it arises under the customs and traditions of the Ho-Chunk Nation.  The HCN Trial Court first dealt with contract claims in Ho-Chunk Nation v. Ross Olsen, CV 99-81 (HCN Tr. Ct., Sept. 18, 2000).  This case involved a dispute over a “Purchase Agreement” for cigarettes.   Id. at 1.  The Court determined that “neither the HCN CONSTITUTION, nor the laws, statutes, codes, or ordinances of the Ho-Chunk Nation addressed the rights and responsibilities concomitant with the formation of a contract.”  Id. at 13.  Former Chief Trial Court Judge Mark Butterfield consulted the Ho-Chunk Nation Traditional Court as to whether Ho-Chunk “custom and tradition recognized agreements analogous to the modern day „contract.‟”

The Traditional Court held that “in the tradition and custom of the Ho-Chunk Nation, agreements between parties for the exchange of goods or services were recognized as binding.”  Id.  Therefore, the Court has subject matter jurisdiction over contract claims as they arise from custom and tradition.  The HCN Supreme Court has upheld and adopted this precedent, using the contract in question as the operative law for the Trial Court to apply.  See e.g., Marx Advertising Agency, Inc., v. Ho-Chunk Nation, SU 04-07 (HCN S. Ct., Apr. 29, 2005) (affirming the Trial Court‟s interpretation of a contract between the Ho-Chunk Nation and its advertising agency, Marx Advertising Agency, Inc.).