tribal courts

We posted materials on this case here.

Two Federal Members Added To Michigan’s Tribal-State Judicial Forum

February 18, 2015Kate Fort

AUSA Jeff Davis and Magistrate Greeley. Order here.

Cynthia Ford Article about Evidence Rules in Montana Tribal Courts…

February 17, 2015Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

in this month’s edition of the Montana Lawyer (see page 14).

February_2015_Montana_Lawyer_new

Federal Court Rejects Nonmember’s Challenge to Colorado River Indian Tribe’s Jurisdiction; Reservation Boundaries Challenge Unresolved

February 17, 2015February 17, 2015Matthew L.M. Fletcher3 Comments

Here is the order in French v. Starr (D. Ariz.):

84 DCT Order

An excerpt:

Finding no impediment to this Court’s application of the doctrine of estoppel against Plaintiff, the Court concludes that Plaintiff is precluded by the terms of the Permit and by his conduct from asserting to this Court in the instant federal action that the lot he leased from CRIT was not within the boundaries of the Reservation to resist a determination that the Tribal Court had jurisdiction over the action brought by CRIT to evict Plaintiff and for damages. See Wendt, 2003 WL 21750676, at *5. The Court would also conclude that the Tribal Court properly applied the doctrine of estoppel to find its own jurisdiction in the underlying action, even though the lot may or may not be within the boundaries of the Reservation. The equitable considerations raised in this dispute— most notably, the policy of promoting tribal self-government and the development of tribal courts, see Iowa Mut. Ins. Co., 480 U.S. at 16-17, the recognition of a tribe’s inherent authority to exclude, see Water Wheel, 642 F.3d at 812-13, and the recognition of the government’s role as trustee of reservation land on behalf of the tribes, see Ruby, 588 F.2d at 704-05—weigh in favor of the Tribal Court’s application of the doctrine of estoppel to determine its jurisdiction in this matter.

And:

In concluding that this Plaintiff is estopped from asserting that the lot he leased from CRIT was not within the Reservation, the Court recognizes that the issue of the location of the Reservation’s boundary remains unresolved. Defendants rightly point out that, in the absence of estoppel, Plaintiff would have to overcome other obstacles in challenging CRIT’s title to the lot—none of which the Court need examine here— including whether the statute of limitations period has run on a challenge to the location of the Reservation’s boundary, whether the Secretary’s determination of the Reservation’s boundary is subject to collateral attack, and whether the United States and CRIT are indispensable parties to such a challenge under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 19.

Briefs are here.

News coverage here.