From the inimitable Judge Voluck:
The recent St. Paul Island project – Tanaam Awaa: ‘Our Community’s Work’ Trauma-Informed Benchbook for Tribal Justice Systems is better in hand … with that said the Tribe has produced a digital version for free download on their Aleut Community of St. Paul Island Tribal Government website.
Now he says “Free” but go ahead and donate some dollars if you can to keep up this good work.
Downloadable here.
Here is the motion in Crow Tribe v. Repsis (D. Wyo.):
An excerpt:
But that was not the end of the story. In 2014, Clayvin B. Herrera, a Crow Tribe member, along with other Crow Tribe members in his hunting party, took three elk in the Bighorn National Forest. Mr. Herrera was cited for, and convicted of, violations of Wyoming hunting laws. Mr. Herrera’s case went all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, which held that the Crow Tribe’s off-reservation treaty hunting right was not extinguished by Wyoming’s statehood. Herrera v. Wyoming, 139 S. Ct. 1686, 1700 (2019). In so doing, the Court also held “that Race Horse is repudiated to the extent it held that treaty rights can be impliedly extinguished at statehood.” Id. at 1697. Today, this Court has the opportunity to relieve the Crow Tribe from the judgment, based on Race Horse, that it entered more than 25 years ago.
This is precisely the sort of circumstance that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60 was written to remedy. This Court’s Repsis judgment remains in force; but that judgment was based entirely on a case that has been expressly and entirely repudiated by the U.S. Supreme Court, which affirmed the vitality of the very same treaty right that that this Court and the Tenth Circuit found extinct. To allow this Court’s Repsis judgment—which might have been correct when it was made, but now has been unequivocally repudiated by the Supreme Court—to bar the Crow Tribe and its members from legally exercising their off-reservation treaty hunting rights would be a profound injustice. Equity requires that the Crow Tribe, and by extension its members, be relieved from this Court’s Repsis judgment, which this Court should now vacate.
Here are the briefs in Paskenta Band of Nomlaki Indians v. Umpqua Bank:
Here are the materials in Paskenta Band of Nomlaki Indians v. Associated Pension Consultants:
Here are the materials in Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Nation v. Okanogan County (Wash. Ct. App.):
An excerpt:
This appeal concerns one of endless broken promises by American government authorities toward Native Americans. The breach of an agreement in this instance also encompasses a violation of a court order.
The Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Nation (Yakama Nation) agreed to dismiss a lawsuit against Okanogan County, and, in return, the county agreed to adopt, by December 31, 2018, a new comprehensive plan and zoning ordinance that hopefully addressed the concerns the Nation had about the county’s current plan and ordinance. The superior court signed an order of dismissal without prejudice of the lawsuit, which order incorporated the many promises of the parties. When Okanogan County failed to adopt a new plan and ordinance by December 31, 2018 and thereby violated the court order, the Yakama Nation moved to vacate the order of dismissal. The superior court denied the motion to vacate on the alternative grounds that it lacked authority to vacate an order of dismissal without prejudice and that the Nation had no sustainable cause of action against the county for breaching its promises or violating the court order. Because the order of dismissal without prejudice imposed numerous obligations on Okanogan County, some of which it has disobeyed, we rule that the motion to vacate should have been granted. We thus reverse the superior court.
Here is the opinion in Warehouse Market Inc. v. State of Oklahoma ex rel. Oklahoma Tax Commission.
Briefs:
An excerpt:
The plaintiff/appellee, Warehouse Market subleased a commercial building from the defendant Pinnacle Management, Inc. The building is on federally restricted Indian land. Subsequently, the defendant/appellant, Oklahoma Tax Commission (OTC) and the Muscogee (Creek) Nation Office of Tax Commission (Tribe) both sought to collect sales tax from Warehouse Market. Warehouse Market filed an interpleader action in the District Court of Okmulgee County, in an attempt to have the court determine which entity to pay. However, the trial court dismissed the Tribe because it had no jurisdiction over it because of the Tribe’s sovereign immunity. The trial court then determined that the OTC could not be entitled to the sales tax unless and until the dispute between the OTC and the Tribe was resolved in another forum or tribunal. The OTC appealed and we retained the appeal. We hold that because the substance of Warehouse Market’s action/request for relief is a tax protest, exhaustion of administrative remedies is a jurisdictional prerequisite to seeking relief in the trial court.
Here are the materials in Pueblo of Acoma v. Dept. of Health and Human Services (D.D.C.):
Here are the materials in Davis v. King County (Wash. Ct. App.):
79696-6-8-I Appellants’ Motion for Reconsideration
79696-6-8-I Appellees’ Response to Motion for Reconsideration
Prior post here.
Here is the pleading from Michelin Retirement Plan v. Dilworth Paxon LLP (D.S.C.):
608-15 Victim Impact Statement
An excerpt from the motion:
In or about the fall of 2017, a man named Quattlebaum contacted WLCC and Wakpamni Lake Community President Lone Hill on three separate occasions. (Lone Hill Decl. ¶ 27; see also Raynes Decl. ¶ 16.) President Lone Hill understood that Mr. Quattlebaum was Judge Quattlebaum, then a United States District Judge for this Court.1 (Lone Hill Decl. ¶ 27; see also Raynes Decl. ¶ 16.) Mr. Quattlebaum asked President Lone Hill about the financial state of WLCC and Wakpamni Lake Community and about the subject matter of the lawsuit. (Lone Hill Decl. ¶ 27.) Based on the information received, Mr. Quattlebaum deduced that WLCC and the Wakpamni Lake Community were destitute. (Id.) President Lone Hill understood from her conversations with Mr. Quattlebaum that he understood and appreciated their innocent and impoverished position. President Lone Hill further understood and believed that Mr. Quattlebaum—as a judge of this Court—indicated to her that no further action was needed with respect to this case.
Prior post in this case here.
Turtle Talk 
You must be logged in to post a comment.