Oklahoma SCT Decides Comanche Nation of Oklahoma ex rel. Comanche Nation Tourism Center v. Coffey

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is the opinion. From the syllabus:

Plaintiff/Appellant Comanche Nation of Oklahoma, a federally recognized Indian Tribe, ex rel. Comanche Nation Tourism Center, filed a lawsuit seeking a declaratory judgment that Defendant/Appellant Wallace Coffey was indebted to it for the amount of the outstanding balance on an open account. The trial court granted Coffey’s motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and dismissed the case with prejudice. Thereafter, Coffey filed an application for prevailing party attorney fees pursuant to 12 O.S.2011 § 936. The trial court denied Coffey’s request for attorney fees, finding he was not the prevailing party because he had not prevailed on the merits of the action. Coffey appealed the order denying attorney fees, and this Court retained the appeal. We hold a defendant is not a “prevailing party” within the meaning of 12 O.S. § 936 when the court dismisses the action with prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The trial court’s order denying Coffey’s motion for attorney fees is affirmed.

Here are pdfs of the separate opinions:

Majority Opinion

Kauger DIssent

Combs Dissent

And the lone pleading I could locate:

Petition in Error

Variety: “Screenwriter Migizi Pensoneau Suggests Vital, Funny and Beautiful Films to Watch for Native American Heritage Month”

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here.

The Onion: “Governors Call On Gretchen Whitmer To Shut Down Their States So Residents Won’t Get Mad At Them”

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here.

Vox: “The case for a Native American secretary of the interior”

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here.

Stat: “‘They’ve been following the science’: How the Covid-19 pandemic has been curtailed in Cherokee Nation”

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here.

Update in Jensen v. EXC, Inc. [bus accident on Navajo lands]

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here are the materials in Jensen v. EXC Inc. (D. Ariz.):

71 Amended Complaint

116 Jensen MSJ

119 Response

121 Reply

126 DCT Order Denying MSJ

181 EXC Pre-Trial Brief

200 Verdict

220 Jensen Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law

221 Response

222 Reply

223 DCT Order Denying 220

And here are the Ninth Circuit briefs (so far):

Opening Brief

Answer Brief

reply-1-1.pdf

Prior posts on this case are here.

Tenth Circuit Confirms Sentence on Cherokee Nation Citizen’s Conviction for Child Neglect

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is the opinion in United States v. Clark.

Texas Observer: “Bringing the Dead Home”

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

“Thirty years after Congress passed the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act, only a fraction of human remains held by Texas’ museums and universities have been returned.”

Here.

Harvard Law Review Case Comment on McGirt v. Oklahoma

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here.

Michael Doran on the Equal Protection Challenge to Indian Law

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Michael Doran has posted “The Equal-Protection Challenge to Federal Indian Law,” forthcoming in the University of Pennsylvania Journal of Law & Public Affairs, on SSRN.

Here is the abstract:

This article addresses a significant challenge to federal Indian law currently emerging in the federal courts. In 2013, the Supreme Court suggested that the Indian Child Welfare Act may be unconstitutional, and litigation on that question is now pending in the Fifth Circuit. The theory underlying the attack is that the statute distinguishes between Indians and non-Indians and thus uses the suspect classification of race, triggering strict scrutiny under the equal-protection component of the Due Process Clause. If the challenge to the Indian Child Welfare Act succeeds, the entirety of federal Indian law, which makes hundreds or even thousands of distinctions based on Indian descent, may be unconstitutional. This article defends the constitutionality of federal Indian law with a novel argument grounded in existing Supreme Court case law. Specifically, this article shows that the congressional plenary power over Indians and Indian tribes, which the Supreme Court has recognized for nearly a century and a half and which inevitably requires Congress to make classifications involving Indians and Indian tribes, compels the application of a rational-basis standard of review to federal Indian law.