Here are the intervention materials in Keepseagle v. Vilsack (D. D.C.):
647-1 Choctaw Nation Motion to Intervene
705-1 Great Plains Claimants Motion
716 Plaintiffs Response to Great Plains Claimants
717 Plaintiffs Response to Choctaw Nation
718 US Response to Choctaw Nation
Here:
Menominee Indian Tribe Cert Petition
Question presented:
Whether the D.C. Circuit misapplied this Court’s Holland decision when it ruled – in direct conflict with a holding of the Federal Circuit on materially similar facts – that the Tribe did not face an “extraordinary circumstance” warranting equitable tolling of the statute of limitations for filing of Indian Self-Determination Act claims under the Contract Disputes Act?
Lower court materials here.
Here:
25 Duluth Motion for Summary J
26 US Cross Motion for Summary J
27-1 Fond du Lac Proposed Amicus Bref
The materials on the federal government’s motion to dismiss are here.
Complaint is here.
Here are the materials in Pyramid Lake Tribe v. Burwell (D. D.C.):
Here are the new materials in Cobell v. Jewell (D.D.C.):
Prior order here.
Here is the opinion in Menominee Tribe v. United States.
An excerpt:
Delays caused by a party’s inauspicious legal judgments are not “extraordinary circumstance[s]” sufficient to justify equitable tolling. Faced with a variety of reasonable litigation options, the Menominee Tribe chose to wait and see if more favorable law would appear. In so doing, the Tribe allowed its claims to expire. Because we find that no obstacle stood in the Menominee Tribe’s way of bringing the claims within the limitations period, the judgment of the district court is affirmed.
Briefs and lower court materials here.
Here is the opinion in Menominee Tribe v. United States.
An excerpt:
Delays caused by a party’s inauspicious legal judgments are not “extraordinary circumstance[s]” sufficient to justify equitable tolling. Faced with a variety of reasonable litigation options, the Menominee Tribe chose to wait and see if more favorable law would appear. In so doing, the Tribe allowed its claims to expire. Because we find that no obstacle stood in the Menominee Tribe’s way of bringing the claims within the limitations period, the judgment of the district court is affirmed.
Briefs and lower court materials here.
Here are the materials in Maniilaq Association v. Burwell (D. D.C.):
17 Maniilaq Motion for Summary J
An excerpt:
Plaintiff Maniilaq Association (“Maniilaq” or “plaintiff”) administers healthcare systems through a self-determination compact and annual funding agreements under the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act (“ISDEAA”), 25 U.S.C. § 458aaa, et seq. Plaintiff is seeking a declaration that a lease with the Indian Health Service (“IHS” or “defendant”) for one of the clinics Maniilaq operates under its self-determination contract is incorporated into Maniilaq’s 2013 funding agreement as a matter of law. Pending before the Court are the parties’ cross motions for summary judgment.1 For the reasons stated below, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment and DENIES Defendant’s Cross Motion for Summary Judgment. An appropriate Order accompanies this opinion.
Here is the complaint in R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. Dept. of Agriculture (D.D.C.):
News coverage here.
Here:
26 US Cross Motion for Summary J
Also:
27-1 Fond du Lac Proposed Amicus Brief
The City’s motion is here.
Turtle Talk 
You must be logged in to post a comment.