Here are the materials:
DCT Order Dismissing Ute Nuisance Complaint
District of Utah
Federal Court Ruling on State Law Jurisdiction over Lands Held in Fee under the Ute Partition and Termination Act
Here is the most recent opinion in Questar Exploration & Prod. Co. v. Lambeth (D. Utah): Questar v Lambeth — DCT Order re State Law Claims.
An excerpt:
Under these provisions, the Subject Property was originally an allotment, encumbered bythe restriction on alienation and the trust relationship of the United States. However, under the Ute Partition and Termination Act, when Ms. Lambeth elected to receive treatment as a mixedblood member, the Secretary of the Interior was required to transfer the property to Ms. Lambeth in fee simple. Thus, Ms. Lambeth received unrestricted control of the Subject Property and the restrictions on the sale or encumbrance of the property, as well as the trust relationship of the United States, were removed upon the granting of the 1960 Patent. As a result, the Court finds that Ms. Lambeth had unrestricted fee title to the Subject Property.
Lambeth argues that additional briefing is required on the issue of how the fee patent could be issued. This question is answered by the Ute Partition and Termination Act. As stated,the Act authorized and directed the Secretary of the Interior “to immediately transfer to [a mixedbloodmember] unrestricted control of all other property held in trust for such mixed-blood member by the United States, and shall further remove all restrictions on the sale or encumbrance of trust or restricted property owned by such member of the tribe, and Federal supervision of such member and his property shall thereby be terminated.” This is precisely what happenedwith the issuance of the 1960 Patent. Therefore, no further briefing is required on this issue.
Federal Court Denies Ute Indian Nation Motion to Reconsider Decision Favoring Ute Distribution Corp.
Here are some of the materials in Ute Indian Nation v. Ute Distribution Corp. (D. Utah):
DCT Order Granting Summary J to Ute Distrib. Corp. (March 12, 2010)
Federal Court Dismisses Indian Country Indictment for Reliance Upon Uncounseled Tribal Court Convictions
Here are the materials in United States v. Shavanaux (D. Utah):
DCT Order Dismissing Shavanaux Indictment
Oklevueha Native American Church v. Holder RFRA Complaint
Here: Oklavueha NAC Complaint (D. Utah).
Federal Court Blocks Ute Tribe’s Efforts to Exclude QEP (Questar)
Here is the P.I. order in QEP v. Ute Indian Tribe (D. Utah): DCT Order Granting QEP Preliminary Injunction.
The court noted:
Although the court would generally stay its proceeding in deference to the tribal system until appellate review was complete, exhaustion is not required “where the action is patently violative of express jurisdictional prohibitions, or where exhaustion would be futile because of the lack of an adequate opportunity to challenge the court’s jurisdiction.” Id. at 856, n.21.
The court would stay its determination if the question of the Tribal Court’s jurisdiction rested on an analysis of the jurisdictional bounds set forth in Montana. But because there was a clear and unambiguous waiver of Tribal Court jurisdiction in the Agreement, the litigation in Tribal Court is patently violative of the parties’ written agreement and exhaustion is unnecessary. In addition, because QEP needs immediate relief as described below and cannot seek money damages from the sovereign Tribe, exhaustion would deprive QEP of an adequate remedy.
Briefs are here.
Utah Alleged Grave Robber Motion to Dismiss Indictment Rejected
Here are recent materials in United States v. Sommerville (D. Utah), over whether the defendant must have actual knowledge that certain artifacts are protected by the Archeological Resources Protection Act:
QEP (Questar) Federal Court Challenge to Tribal Banishment
Here are the materials so far in QEP v. Ute Indian Tribe (D. Utah):
Section 1983 Claim against Off-Reservation Police Officer Engaged in On-Reservation Duty Survives
Because the officer had no jurisdiction in Indian Country: Jones v Norton (D. Utah).
An excerpt:
The Plaintiffs have filed this lawsuit against various Defendants in connection with the shooting death of Todd R. Mr. Murray which occurred while he was being pursued by police on the Uintah-Ouray Indian Reservation. Defendants Vance Norton and Vernal City move to dismiss the claims against them.
The court holds that Detective Norton did not have jurisdiction to seize Mr. Murray. Because there are disputed issues of fact concerning whether Mr. Murray was seized and whether exigent circumstances justified the seizure if it occurred, the court DENIES Defendants’ motion to dismiss the § 1983 claims. But the court holds that the Utah Governmental Immunity Act applies to state law enforcement on Indian reservations and accordingly GRANTS Defendants’ motion to dismiss the state law claims.
Skull Valley Band v. Davis Materials
Here are the briefs in this case (h/t Indianz):
Turtle Talk 
You must be logged in to post a comment.