Eighth Circuit – Page 13

Appellants Ramona Two Shields and Mary Louise Defender Wilson are Indians with interests in land allotted to them by the United States under the Dawes Act of 1887. Such land is held in trust by the government, but may be leased by allottees. Two Shields and Defender Wilson leased oil and gas mining rights on their allotments to appellee companies and affiliated individuals who won a sealed bid auction conducted by the Board of Indian Affairs (BIA) in 2007. Subsequent to the auction, appellants agreed to terms with the winning bidders, the BIA approved the leases, and appellees sold them for a large profit. Appellants later filed this putative class action in the District of North Dakota, claiming that the United States had breached its fiduciary duty by approving the leases for the oil and gas mining rights, and that the defendant bidders aided, abetted, and induced the United States to breach that duty. The district court concluded that the United States was a required party which could not be joined, but without which the action could not proceed in equity and good conscience, and dismissed the case. Appellants challenge that dismissal. For the reasons stated below, we affirm.

Briefs here.

State of Nebraska v. Parker Cert Petition

June 2, 2015June 4, 2015Matthew L.M. Fletcher2 Comments

Here:

State of Nebraska v Parker cert petition

Questions presented:

In Solem v. Bartlett, the Court articulated a three-part analysis designed to evaluate whether a surplus land act may have resulted in a diminishment of a federal Indian reservation. See 465 U.S. 463, 470-72 (1984). The Court found that the “statutory language used to open the Indian lands,” “events surrounding the passage of a surplus land Act,” and “events that occurred after the passage of a surplus land Act” are all relevant to determining whether diminishment has occurred.

The questions presented by the petition are:

1. Whether ambiguous evidence concerning the first two Solem factors necessarily forecloses any possibility that diminishment could be found on a de facto basis.

2. Whether the original boundaries of the Omaha Indian Reservation were diminished following passage of the Act of August 7, 1882.

Lower court materials here.

Eighth Circuit Affirms Dismissal of FTCA Claim involving Rosebud Sioux Tribal Police

May 27, 2015May 27, 2015Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is the opinion in Sorace v. United States.

An excerpt:

Norma Sorace (“Sorace”), Administratix of the Estates of Melanie Sorace and Jahneva Cannaday, a minor, filed suit against the United States of America alleging a claim under the Federal Tort Claims Act (“FTCA”) based upon a drunk-driving accident on the Rosebud Sioux Indian Reservation in South Dakota. Melanie Sorace and Jahneva Cannaday were killed when an intoxicated Shad Dillon (“Dillon”) crashed his pickup into a vehicle driven by Melanie Sorace. Sorace alleges that the Rosebud Sioux Tribe’s Police Department (“RST PD”) was negligent in failing to locate and arrest Dillon prior to the accident. The United States of America (“United States”) filed a motion to dismiss, which the district court1 granted. Sorace appeals, and we affirm.

Eighth Circuit Decides Two Tribal Court Jurisdiction Matters Today

May 15, 2015Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

In both cases, the court concluded that the tribal courts did not have jurisdiction over tort claims brought against public schools in tribal court.

Here is the opinion in Belcourt Public School District v. Davis. Briefs are here.

Here is the opinion in Fort Yates Public School District No. 4 v. Murphy. Briefs are here.

Eighth Circuit Briefs in Bettor Racing v. NIGC

May 9, 2015May 8, 2015Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Here:

Flandreau Brief

NIGC Brief

Other briefs TK.

Lower court materials here.

Fond du lac Band Prevails (Again) before Eighth Circuit in Gaming Compact Dispute

May 8, 2015Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is the opinion in City of Duluth v. Fond du Lac Band of Lake Superior Chippewa II:

City of Duluth v. Fond du Lac Band of Lake Superior Chippewa 8th Circuit Decision

An excerpt:

We remand to the district court for its reconsideration of the Band’s Rule 60(b)(6) motion and direct it to consider all of the factors outlined here and in our prior remand order. Accordingly, the district court must give proper weight to the congressional intent that tribes be the primary beneficiaries of Indian gaming as well as other relevant factors we have previously identified. These include the facts that the City was on notice in 2009 of relevant actions and policies of the Gaming Commission and its warning in the 2011 Notice of Violation that the tribe would violate IGRA by making further rent payments to the city. As discussed in our prior City of Duluth opinion, such change in the governing law is also relevant to the question of whether an exceptional circumstance compels a grant of Rule 60(b)(6) relief. City of Duluth, 702 F.3d at 1154-55; see In re Pac. Far E. Lines, Inc., 889 F.2d 242 (9th Cir. 1989).

Briefs are here.