Here is that order:
Injunction in GRIC v. United States 05-03-2011
Previously, the court had granted summary judgment to the United States (materials here).
District of Arizona
News Coverage & Legal Pleadings in Grand Canyon Skywalk Dispute
Here are the initial pleadings in Grand Canyon Skywalk Development LLC v. Vaughn (D. Ariz.):
And here is the article.
An excerpt:
Both sides have hired former U.S. attorneys: Paul Charlton, once the top federal prosecutor in Arizona, represents the Hualapais. Troy Eid, who held a similar position in Colorado, represents Skywalk Development.
According to the lawsuit, Jin negotiated a 25-year contract with a tribally owned company to build and operate the attraction for half of the proceeds. Jin claims to have received no revenue since the first year.
Jin previously had worked with Hualapai leaders to finance and establish helicopter, rafting and other tours on the reservation, where outside developers cannot operate without tribal permission.
Sarah Krakoff, a law professor and former director of the American Indian Law Clinic at the University of Colorado, said she is not familiar with the case but foresees political and economic damage if a tribe uses sovereign power to nullify a contract with an outside investor.
“There are risks for folks trying to do business in Indian country,” Krakoff said, “and if it is perceived that those risks are heightening, that could spell a concern.”
Robert Anderson, director of the University of Washington’s Native American Law Center, said Indian nations have broad authority over reservation activities and may be insulated from federal jurisdiction by sovereignty. Because of that, he said, tribes doing business with outsiders sometimes waive sovereign immunity for business purposes.
Anderson noted that the Hualapai Tribe will have to pay “just compensation” if it tears up Jin’s contract and risks being shunned by other investors.
Quechan Tribe Claim re: Indian Hospital Services Fails
Here is the opinion: Quechan v US — IHS Claim
An excerpt:
This is an action brought by the Quechan Indian Tribe against the United States seeking a declaration that the United States has a duty to operate its medical facilities and practices at a level that meets or exceeds a minimum generally accepted standard of care, and that the United States has breached that duty. Plaintiff also seeks equitable relief requiring defendants to ensure its medical services at the Fort Yuma Indian Reservation do not fall below the minimum standard of care.
Third Consecutive Sentencing Decision from Arizona Federal Courts — Alvarez v. Tracey
Here are the materials:
Order on Motion for Partial SJ 03-31-11
An excerpt:
The Court concludes that, for purposes of § 1302(7), two charges are differentoffenses if each “requires proof of a fact which the other does not,” regardless of whetherthey arise from the same transaction. See Blockburger, 284 U.S. at 304. Applying thisdefinition to Petitioner’s case, § 1302(7) has not been violated by his convictions andpunishment. Petitioner’s own description suggests that each offense required proof of a factthat the others did not. The Court will accept the R&R and deny Petitioner’s motion forpartial summary judgment.
Gila River v. United States — Federal Court Affirms Interior Decision to Take Land Into Trust for Tohono O’odham Nation
Here is the opinion, via Indianz.
Here are the key materials:
USA Motion for Summary J in Gila River v US
US Must Defend under Federal Tort Claim Act Tribal Police Officer Torts
Here is the opinion in Garcia v. United States (D. Ariz.): Garcia v US
The court rejected the government’s motion for summary judgment, on grounds that the Navajo police officer (who struck a killed the plaintiff while driving under the influence) was working in the scope of work of a 638 contract.
Federal Court Claim re: Hopi Secretarial Election Stayed under Tribal Court Exhaustion Doctrine
Here are the materials in Sekayumptewa v. Salazar (D. Ariz.):
Tohono O’odham Nation Amicus Brief in Challenge to Arizona Immigration Law SB1070
Here: TON Amicus Brief in Friendly House Case
The complaint in the case, Friendly House v. Whiting (D. Ariz.) is here.
Salt River Project Federal Challenge to Navajo Labor Relations Board Dismissed
Here are the materials in Salt River Project Agricultural Improvement and Power District v. Lee (D. Ariz.):
Navajo Exhaustion Motion to Dismiss
Navajo Rule 19 Motion to Dismiss
Salt River Motion for Summary Judgment
This case is on remand from the Ninth Circuit — and that order is here.
A Quick Note on Politics, Indian Gaming Lands Litigation, and Permissive Intervention
In the Gila River Indian Community v. United States litigation over proposed gaming lands benefiting the Tohono O’odham Nation, there have been numerous efforts by Arizona state politicians to intervene in the suit. No party seems to want them there, and they don’t seem to be adding a whole lot to the suit in terms of substance, and the court largely had refused to let individual politicians in the case — at first. Here are the first two orders, denying two such requests:
DCT Order Denying Sen Pearce Motion to Intervene
DCT Order Denying Scott Bundgaard Motion to Intervene
On November 19, however, Judge Campbell permitted the intervention of “Legislative Leaders” of the Arizona Legislature. Here is that order: DCT Order Permitting Intervention of Ariz Legislators.
Why?
Turtle Talk 
You must be logged in to post a comment.