tribal courts – Page 180

Here is the order denying Alltel’s motion for a TRO to shut down a tribal court proceeding brought by the Oglala Sioux Tribe: Alltel Communications v Oglala Sioux Tribe.

The court wrote:

That under the guidance of Lien and Gaming World, the court recognizes comity and honors the right of the Oglala Sioux Tribal Court, in the first instance, to determine whether it has jurisdiction to consider the defendant tribe’s petition for preliminary injunction in tribal court action Civ. # 09-0673.

Lower Sioux Not Necessary Party in State Ct. Contract Claim; Tribal Court Claims May Continue

March 3, 2010March 3, 2010Matthew L.M. Fletcher

This case is Lower Sioux Indian Community v. Kraus-Anderson Const. Co. (Minn. App.). Here is the unpublished opinion.

An exceprt:

Because Lower Sioux is not a necessary party to this litigation, we reverse the district court’s order joining Lower Sioux as a party and enjoining it from pursuing parallel tribal court litigation.

The determination that Lower Sioux is not a necessary party is dispositive. Thus, we need not reach and do not reach the parties’ dispute over whether Lower Sioux waived its sovereign immunity, either contractually or by initiating the district court action. Nor do we take any position on the jurisdiction of the tribal court over the subcontractor respondents or whether the subcontractors may be joined as parties to the tribal court proceedings. Those determinations are for the tribal court. See Klammer v. Lower Sioux Convenience Store, 535 N.W.2d 379, 381 (Minn.App.1995) (explaining that comity requires allowing tribal court to determine its own jurisdiction); Rule 12(c) of the Lower Sioux Community in the State of Minnesota Judicial Code Rules of Civil Procedure, available at http://maiba.org/pdf/LowerSioux.pdf (addressing standard for joinder in tribal court). We also deny as moot Kraus-Anderson’s motions to modify the record and to strike portions of one respondent’s brief because the disputes raised by the motions are relevant only to the issues that we have declined to reach.

Federal Court Dismisses Tort Claim against Harrah’s under Tribal Court Exhaustion Doctrine

February 28, 2010Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here are the materials for this case, Jaramillo v. Harrah’s (Rincon Casino & Resort):

Harrah’s Motion to Dismiss

Jaramillo DCT Order

Dickson v. San Juan County Cert Petition

February 26, 2010Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Dickson v. San Juan County Cert Petition

Lower court materials here.

Questions presented are too long for this blog to reproduce.

Continue reading →

N.Y. Supreme Court Enforces Mashantucket Pequot Tribal Court Civil Judgment

February 25, 2010Matthew L.M. Fletcher

This is always nice to see:

Mashantucket Pequot v Yau

Navajo Tribal Council Overrides Veto of Law that Would Limit Application of Dine Fundamental Law

February 24, 2010Matthew L.M. Fletcher

News article via Indianz:

FLAGSTAFF, Ariz. – Navajo lawmakers voted Tuesday to override the veto of a bill that prohibits tribal judges from using a set of laws based on centuries-old traditional values and customs in court cases.

The Tribal Council voted 67-11 in favor of the override during a special session in Window Rock.

Judges often have interwoven what’s known as Dine Fundamental Law with other statutes that are not always consistent with Navajo cultures. Now, any dispute regarding the validity, application or interpretation of fundamental law will not be heard in Navajo courts but be resolved consensually through peacemaking.

“Judges and justices themselves do not know what fundamental law is all about,” said Delegate Lorenzo Curley, an inactive member of the Navajo Bar Association. “In this vague system that we have, how can we expect justice or fair play? There’s been no certainty at all.” Continue reading →