Here:
Lower court materials here.
Eighth Circuit
Supreme Court Cert Petition in Two Shields v. Wilkinson
Here:
ILTF Amicus Brief in Support of Petition
Law Profs Amicus Brief in Support of Petition
Questions presented:
In Temple v. Synthes Corp., 498 U.S. 5 (1990) (per curiam), this Court unanimously held that joint tortfeasors are not required parties under Rule 19(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure because “[i]t has long been the rule that it is not necessary for all joint tortfeasors to be named as defendants in a single lawsuit.” Id. at 7. Six circuits have recognized the rule that joint wrongdoers are not required parties under Rule 19(a). Three circuits now have followed the opposite rule in holding that, in some circumstances, a joint tortfeasor is a required party, while case law in the Seventh Circuit is conflicted. The Eighth Circuit below followed the minority line of the circuit split to affirm the district court’s dismissal of the action under Rule 19 for failure to join the United States.
The question presented is: Does Rule 19 incorporate the common law rule that joint tortfeasors are not required parties?
Lower court materials here.
NCAI Amicus Brief in United States v. Bryant
United States v. Bryant Cert Petition — Federal Habitual Offender Statute and Uncounseled Tribal Court Convictions
Here is the petition:
Question presented:
Section 117(a) of Title 18, United States Code, makes it a federal crime for any person to “commit[] a domestic assault within the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States or Indian country” if the person “has a final conviction on at least 2 separate prior occasions in Federal, State, or Indian tribal court proceedings for” enumerated domestic-violence offenses. 18 U.S.C. 117(a).
United States Cert Opposition Brief in Nebraska v. Parker
Split Eighth Circuit Affirms Drug Conviction of Lower Brule Sioux Tribe Member
Here is the opinion in United States v. Long.
Latest District Court Memorandum and Order in Duluth v. Fond Du Lac
Given the significant weight that is to be placed on this factor, the Court finds that it tips the balance in favor of granting the Band retrospective relief under Rule 60(b)(6). Although (1) the parties voluntarily agreed to the Consent Decree, (2) the NIGC initially endorsed the Agreements, and (3) the NIGC may lack authority to punish the Band for its compliance with the Consent Decree, those factors are outweighed by (4) the strong congressional intent that tribes be the primary beneficiaries of gaming revenues, (5) the fact that the Band’s obligation to pay rent under the Agreements is now considered—by the agency tasked with making such determinations—to violate that intent, and (6) the fact that the City was aware of the NIGC’s changing viewpoint on the subject matter. Accordingly, the Band is relieved from its obligation to pay to the City the rent withheld in 2009, 2010, and 2011.
Previous coverage here.
Sharply Divided Ninth Circuit Denies En Banc Review in United States v. Bryant
Here are the materials:
CA9 Order Denying En Banc Petition + Opinions
Panel materials and commentary are here.
Eighth Circuit Affirms Dismissal of Two Shields v. Wilkinson
Here is the opinion:
An excerpt:
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
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.
Turtle Talk 
You must be logged in to post a comment.