HCI Distribution Suit against Nebraska AG Survives Motion to Dismiss

Here are the materials in HCI Distribution Inc. v. Peterson (D. Neb.):

1 Complaint

16 US Motion to Stay

18 HCI Opposition to 16

26 DCT Order Denying Motion to Stay

28 State Motion to Dismiss

29 HCI Opposition to 28

32 Reply in Support of 28

35 DCT Order

Federal Court Approves Auctioning of HCI Smokes; Case Still Under Active Investigation

Here is the order in United States v. 2015 Dodge Ram 350 Truck (D. Neb.):

77 dct order

Prior post here.

Federal Court Rejects Individual Indian’s Effort to Block Pipeline

Here are the materials in Northern Natural Gas Company v. 80 Acres of Land in Thurston County, Neb. (D. Neb.):

51 Soloman MTD

53 Northern MSJ

56 Northern Opposition to 51

57 Northern Reply

58 DCt Order

Prior post here.

Federal Court, US, Omaha Tribe Allow Utility’s Condemndation of Omaha Allotment Land to Proceed

Here are the materials in Northern Natural Gas Company v. 80 Acres of Land in Thurston County, Neb. (D. Neb.):

36 gas motion for summary j

41 us acquiescence

42 pro se defendant opposition

43 reply

49 dct order

United States Attorney Initiates Forfeiture of Nearly 45,000 Cartons of HCI Smokes and other property

Here is the pleading captioned United States v. 2015 Dodge Ram 350 Truck (D. Neb.):

complaint

Update — here is the amended complaint now captioned United States v. 2005 Freightliner M2106 Box Truck (D. Neb.):

amended complaint

 

Federal Court Declines to Suppress Statement Made by Habitual D.V. Defendant Represented by Tribal Lay Advocate

Here are the materials in United States v. Freemont (D. Neb.):

45 motion to suppress

46 response

58 magistrate report

59 objection

63 dct order

Federal Court Finds No Jurisdiction for Itself in Tribal Guardianship Proceeding

Here.

Section 1914 does not confer jurisdiction upon this court because the guardianship action at issue here was not decided under State law. Rather, Plaintiff is challenging an Indian tribal court’s decision to place an Indian child in foster care. Plaintiff does not allege that the tribal court lacked jurisdiction to make a custody determination or otherwise violated his due process or equal protection rights; rather, he merely alleges that its decision violated the Indian Child Welfare Act. However, the Indian Child Welfare Act, 25 U.S.C. §§ 1901-1963, gives Indian tribes jurisdiction to determine custody of Indian children. See DeMent v. Oglala Sioux Tribal Court, 874 F.2d 510, 514 (8th Cir. 1989). The Indian Child Welfare Act does not confer jurisdiction upon this court to review the propriety of the tribal court’s guardianship decision in this case.

Federal Court Dismisses Oglala Sioux Tribe Suit against Whiteclay Distributors and Beer Companies

News coverage.

Here:

DCT Order Dismissing OST Complaint

One other pleading:

OST Brief in Opposition

The complaint is here.

Defendants in Oglala Sioux Case Against Brewers and Distributors Filed Motions to Dismiss

The defendants in the case filed 6 separate motions to dismiss along with briefs on Friday.

Brehmer Brief in Support of Motion to Dismiss

Kozal Brief in Support of Motion to Dismiss

Schwarting Brief in Support of Motion to Dismiss

Budweiser and Coors Distributor Brief in Support of Motion to Dismiss

Brewer Defendants’ Joint Brief in Support of Motion to Dismiss

Sanford Holdings Brief in Support of Motion to Dismiss