Dolgencorp. v. Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians

Supreme Court Grants Cert in Dollar General

Kate Fort2 Comments

Despite the SG’s brief recommending otherwise–order list here.

Previous coverage here.

From the original cert petition by Dollar General:

In this case, a divided panel of the Fifth Circuit held that tribal courts do have that jurisdiction. Five judges dissented from the denial of rehearing en banc. The case accordingly presents the issue the Court left open in Hicks and the Question the Court granted certiorari to decide in Plains Commerce:

Whether Indian tribal courts have jurisdiction to adjudicate civil tort claims against nonmembers, including as a means of regulating the conduct of nonmembers who enter into consensual relationships with a tribe or its members?

Dollar General Response Brief to SG’s Invitation Brief

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here:

13-1496 Petr Supp Brief

SG Invitation brief here.

Cert stage briefs here.

SG’s Invitation Brief Opposing Dollar General Cert Petition

Matthew L.M. Fletcher2 Comments

Here:

13-1496 Dollar General CVSG

Cert stage briefs are here.

Cert Stage Briefs in Dollar General v. Mississippi Choctaw

Matthew L.M. Fletcher3 Comments

Here:

Dollar General Cert Petition

Mississippi Choctaw Cert Opposition

Dollar General Reply

Mississippi Choctaw Supplemental Brief

En banc petition materials here.

CA5 Order Denying Dolgencorp En Banc Petition

Panel materials here.

Lower court decision and materials here.

Dollar General Corp. v. Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians Cert Petition

Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Here:

Dollar General Cert Petition

Questions presented:

Whether Indian tribal courts have jurisdiction to adjudicate civil tort claims against nonmembers, including as a means of regulating the conduct of nonmembers who enter into consensual relationships with a tribe or its members?

Lower court materials here.

The court also voted 9-5 to deny the en banc petition: CA5 Order Denying Dolgencorp En Banc Petition

En banc petition materials here.

Panel materials here.

Lower court decision and materials here.

Fifth Circuit Panel Issues Amended Opinion in Dolgencorp v. Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians

Matthew L.M. Fletcher2 Comments

Here is the amended opinion:

CA5 Amended Opinion

The main amendment appears to be that the panel will no longer rely upon the Ninth Circuit’s holding in Water Wheel — and instead finds that the tribe retains jurisdiction over the underlying tort claim under the Montana 1 consensual relations exception.

The court also voted 9-5 to deny the en banc petition: CA5 Order Denying Dolgencorp En Banc Petition

En banc petition materials here.

Panel materials here.

Lower court decision and materials here.

Fifth Circuit En Banc Petition Materials in Dolgencorp v. Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians

Matthew L.M. Fletcher5 Comments

Here:

DOLGENCORP En Banc Petition

Tribal Response

CA5 panel materials are here.

Split Fifth Circuit Panel Affirms Tribal Civil Jurisdiction over Nonmember in Dolgencorp v. Miss. Choctaw

Matthew L.M. Fletcher6 Comments

Here is the opinion. An excerpt:

Dolgencorp, Inc. and Dollar General Corp. (collectively “Dolgencorp”) brought an action in the district court seeking to enjoin John Doe, a member of the Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians, and other defendants (collectively “the tribal defendants”) from adjudicating tort claims against Dolgencorp in the Choctaw tribal court. The district court denied Dolgencorp’s motion for summary judgment and granted summary judgment in favor of the tribal defendants, concluding that the tribal court may properly exercise jurisdiction over Doe’s claims. Because we agree that Dolgencorp’s consensual relationship with Doe  gives rise to tribal court jurisdiction over Doe’s claims under Montana v. United States, 450 U.S. 544, 564-66 (1981), we AFFIRM the district court’s judgment.

Briefs are here.

Lower court decision and materials here.