Here:
Cert stage briefs are here.
Here:
Mississippi Choctaw Cert Opposition
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.
Here.
I wondered when I learned that Tom Goldstein is co-counsel for the petitioners when this petition would end up as a SCOTUSblog “Petition of the Day.” As might be well known to TT readers, SCOTUSblog is the best daily source of news on the Supreme Court. But it is also (or was) a tool for Mr. Goldstein to drum up business. The blog recently make some headlines in its effort to acquire/obtain/earn a Supreme Court press credential, and was denied. Mr. Goldstein’s passionate and sophisticated response is well worth the read. As a question of journalism, I strongly support SCOTUSBlog’s efforts. It doesn’t bother me that SCOTUSblog-as-client development tool might somehow affect SCOTUSblog-as-journalist.
For what appears to be the first time, Mr. Goldstein is representing a Supreme Court petitioner against tribal interests, and so to the extent that it means anything at all, the tribal interests here are adversely affected by the SCOTUSblog-as-journalism outlet and SCOTUSBlog-as-Supreme Court advocate dynamic. There’s not enough information before me to make a conclusion as to whether that dynamic will affect the Court’s certiorari decision at the long conference here in a few weeks.
Here is a list of TT posts recognizing an Indian law “Petition to Watch” as identified by SCOTUSblog (grants are in red): Continue reading
Here:
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.
Here is the 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.
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.
Here are the briefs so far in Dolgencorp. Inc. v. Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians:
UPDATE (3/4/13): Dolgencorp Reply Brief
Lower court decision and materials here.
You must be logged in to post a comment.