Here is the petition captioned Sharp Image Gaming, Inc. v. Shingle Springs Band of Miwok Indians:
Question presented:
Whether a collateral agreement to a management contract for an Indian gaming operation is subject to approval by the National Indian Gaming Commission only if the collateral agreement itself provides for management of all or part of the operation.
Lower court materials here.
Here are the materials in Stockbridge-Munsee Community v. State of Wisconsin (W.D. Wis.):
76 motion to file amended complaint
85 stockbridge-munsee opposition to motion for sanctions
Prior post here.
Here are the materials in Stockbridge-Munsee Community v. State of Wisconsin (W.D. Wis.):
Here is the opinion in Pueblo of Pojoaque v. State of New Mexico.
An excerpt:
Plaintiffs-Appellants Pueblo of Pojoaque and its governor, Joseph M. Talachy, (collectively “the Pueblo”) appeal from the district court’s dismissal of its claim for declaratory and injunctive relief based on the State of New Mexico’s alleged unlawful interference with Class III gaming operations on the Pueblo’s lands. Pueblo of Pojoaque v. New Mexico, 214 F. Supp. 3d 1028 (D.N.M. 2016). Exercising jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, we affirm.
From the dissent:
This appeal turns on what constitutes regulation of tribal gaming.
The majority answers narrowly, stating that New Mexico is regulating Indian gaming only when the regulation is directly applied to Indian gaming on tribal land. In my view, this approach is unsupportable and unrealistic. Under the allegations in the Pueblo’s complaint, New Mexico is trying—with considerable success—to disrupt the Pueblo’s gaming operations by targeting the Pueblo’s vendors. This disruption is not
softened by the state’s strategy of targeting vendors.
Briefs here.
Here are the materials in Chemehuevi Indian Tribe v. Brown (C.D. Cal.):
Here are the materials in Pauma Band of Luiseno Mission Indians of the Pauma & Yuima Reservation v. State of California (S.D. Cal.):
Turtle Talk 
You must be logged in to post a comment.