Alabama Supreme Court Finds Purchasing Dram Shop Insurance Waives Sovereign Immunity

Writ of Mandamus denied without opinion, but the concurring opinion is here.

Because the Poarch Band has structured its
Tribal Code to prevent dram-shop claims from being heard in
the tribal court, its claim of immunity from a state-court
action is accordingly diminished.

***

Because PBCI’s formal covenant to assume financial
responsibility in dram-shop actions constitutes an explicit
waiver of its sovereign immunity from liability for such
actions, I concur in denying PBCI’s petition for a writ of
mandamus ordering the trial court to dismiss this action on
the ground of tribal immunity.

Absentee Shawnee Attempt to Dismiss State Court Bittle v. Bahe Litigation Fails

Here is the district court order in Absentee Shawnee v. Combs (W.D. Okla.) — Absentee Shawnee DCT Order.

The tribe had been the defendant in Bittle v. Bahe, in which the Oklahoma Supreme Court held 7-2 that dram shop actions filed against tribal casino operations are not barred by tribal sovereign immunity. The tribe brought this action in federal court to force the dismissal of the state court action, but failed. Here are the materials:

Combs Motion to Dismiss

Absentee Shawnee Response to Combs

Bittle Motion to Dismiss

Absentee Shawnee Response to Bittle

Connecticut Court Dismisses Dram Shop Action against Mohegans

Maybe another one to watch involving the state law question of whether tribal businesses are immune from Dram Shop actions. The case is Vanstaen-Holland v. Lavigne.

vanstaen-holland-v-lavigne-trial-court-order

Cook v. Avi Casino Enterprises Cert Petition

Here is the petition — cook-v-avi-casino-enterprises-cert-petition

Here are the lower court materials (previously posted).

Ninth Circuit Affirms Immunity of Tribally Chartered Corporation

In Cook v. Avi Casino, a divided Ninth Circuit panel held that a dram shop action against Avi Casino Enterprises, a wholly owned corporation owned by the Fort Mohave Indian Tribe and chartered under the laws of the tribe, was barred by sovereign immunity. The panel split over the question of whether the federal court had jurisdiction over the claim on the basis of diversity.

cook-opening-brief

avi-casino-brief

cook-v-avi-casino-ca9-opinion