Here are the materials in Navajo Nation v. Urban Outfitters, Inc. (D.N.M.):
District of New Mexico
D. N.M. Denies Motion to Amend Judgment in Water Rights Settlement
Here are the materials in the matter of New Mexico et al v. Aamodt el al, 66-cv-00639 (D. N.M. Sept. 9, 2016):
Doc. 10543 – Memorandum Opinion and Order Approving Settlement Agreement
Doc. 10567 – Opposed Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment Pursuant to Rule 59(e)
Doc. 10632 – Reply in Support of Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment Pursuant to Rule 59(e)
Warrant Issued by Federal Court to Recover Acoma Ceremonial Shield
Here are the materials in United States v. Acoma Ceremonial Shield (D. N.M.):
Navajo Nation Sues and Seeks TRO Against State Court Jurisdiction Over Easement on Allotted Land
Here are the materials in the matter of Navajo Nation et al v. Rael et al, 16-cv-00888 (D. N.M. 2016):
Judge Dismisses Navajo Nation Challenge to State Jurisdiction in Personal Injury Suits at Casinos
Here are the materials in the matter of Navajo Nation et al v. Marsh et al, 15-cv-00799 (D. N.M. 2016):
Doc. 12 – Motion for Summary Judgment
Doc. 13 – Response to Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment
Doc. 17 – McNeal Defendant’s Response in Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment
Doc. 19 – Reply in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment
Doc. 21 – Memorandum Opinion and Order
Link to previously posted complaint here.
AUSA Vacancy with Criminal Division in Albuquerque
Link to USAJobs announcement here. Â Closes July 11, 2016.
Remaining CERCLA Claims against Laguna Dismissed
Here are the materials in Atlantic Richfield Co. v. United States (D. N.M.):
Updates in Navajo Nation v. Urban Outfitters
Here are the materials in Navajo Nation v. Urban Outfitters, 12-cv-00195 (D. N.M.):
Doc. 683 Order Denying Defendants’ Motion to Limit Damages to Initial Wagner Report
Pojoaque/New Mexico Contempt Materials in Gaming Compact Dispute
Here are the materials in Pueblo of Pojoaque v. State of New Mexico (D. N.M.):
53 Pojoaque Motion for Contempt
115 DCTÂ Order
An excerpt:
The Court will deny the Motion. First, although the Plaintiffs are not required to demonstrate that they suffered actual damages, such damages would help them to establish that the deferrals constitute threats. Second, the deferrals do not “threaten” the vendors within Judge Brack’s PI’s meaning. The Gaming Board, however, treads perilously close to civil contempt and should take care not to interfere with the Plaintiffs’ vendors.
You must be logged in to post a comment.