cert petition – Page 32

State of Nebraska v. Parker Cert Petition

June 2, 2015June 4, 2015Matthew L.M. Fletcher2 Comments

Here:

State of Nebraska v Parker cert petition

Questions presented:

In Solem v. Bartlett, the Court articulated a three-part analysis designed to evaluate whether a surplus land act may have resulted in a diminishment of a federal Indian reservation. See 465 U.S. 463, 470-72 (1984). The Court found that the “statutory language used to open the Indian lands,” “events surrounding the passage of a surplus land Act,” and “events that occurred after the passage of a surplus land Act” are all relevant to determining whether diminishment has occurred.

The questions presented by the petition are:

1. Whether ambiguous evidence concerning the first two Solem factors necessarily forecloses any possibility that diminishment could be found on a de facto basis.

2. Whether the original boundaries of the Omaha Indian Reservation were diminished following passage of the Act of August 7, 1882.

Lower court materials here.

SCOTUS Denies Cert in Stop the Casino 101 v. California

May 26, 2015Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is today’s order list.

Petition here.

Dollar General Response Brief to SG’s Invitation Brief

May 21, 2015Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here:

13-1496 Petr Supp Brief

SG Invitation brief here.

Cert stage briefs here.

Oklahoma v. Hobia is SCOTUSBlog Petition of the Day

May 18, 2015Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here.

The petition is here.

SG’s Invitation Brief Opposing Dollar General Cert Petition

May 13, 2015Matthew L.M. Fletcher2 Comments

Here:

13-1496 Dollar General CVSG

Cert stage briefs are here.

SCOTUS Denies Cert in Western Sky v. Jackson

April 27, 2015Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is the order list.

Cert stage briefs are here.

Lower court materials here.

Stop the Casino 101 Coalition v. Brown Cert Petition

April 21, 2015April 20, 2015Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Here:

Cert Petition

Questions presented:

1. Does the federal government have the unilateral power to alter California’s historic territorial jurisdiction and transfer that jurisdiction to an Indian tribe?

2. If the answer to the first question is affirmative, should a federal statute restoring tribal recognition and authorizing the United States to accept fee title to unspecified private lands within California’s borders be construed as transferring territorial jurisdiction from the state to the tribe when the statutory language is silent on that subject?

3. Can a state’s territorial jurisdiction shift by implication, or is an express, unequivocal acceptance of jurisdiction required under 40 U.S.C. § 3112?

Lower court materials here.