Here:
Lower court materials here.
Here are the updated materials in Minnesota Dept. of Natural Resources v. White Earth Band of Ojibwe (D. Minn.):
21 DNR Letter Motion for Reconsideration
Prior post here.
Here are the materials in Minnesota Dept. of Natural Resources v. White Earth Band of Ojibwe (D. Minn.):‘
Prior post here.
Here are the updated materials in Keweenaw Bay Indian Community v. Khouri (W.D. Mich.):
421 DCT Order re State Prosecutions
422 DCT Order re Protective Order
Prior post here.
Here are the materials so far in MGM Resorts Global Development LLC v. Dept. of Interior (D.D.C.):
24-1 State & Tribal Sovereigns Motion to Intervene
27 MGM Response to Motion to Dismiss
33 Reply in Support of Motion to Dismiss
34 MGM Opposition to Motion to Intervene
36 Reply in Support of Motion to Intervene
38 DCT Order Granting Motion to Intervene
We posted the complaint here.
Here (thanks to the Supreme Court Project page):
State of New York Brief in Opposition
Oneida Indian Nation Brief in Opposition
The petition is here.
Here:
11-7-14 Stockbridge-Munsee Cert Petition_(filed)
Questions presented:
In Petrella v. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, Inc., 134 S. Ct. 1962 (2014), this Court held that courts may not override Congress’ judgment and apply laches to summarily dispose of claims at law filed within a statute of limitations established by Congress, thereby foreclosing the possibility of any form of relief. Equitable remedies may be foreclosed at the litigation’s outset due to a delay in commencing suit only in “extraordinary circumstances,” such as the need to prevent unjust hardship on innocent third parties. Id. at 1978.
The question presented is: Where Petitioner’s claims were filed within the statutory-limitations period established by Congress, did the court of appeals contravene this Court’s
decision in Petrella by invoking delay-based equitable principles to summarily dismiss all of Petitioner’s federal treaty, statutory and common-law claims, including one for money damages as upheld by this Court in County of Oneida v. Oneida Indian Nation of N.Y., 470 U.S. 226, 246 (1985)?
Lower court materials here. En banc petition materials here.
Here:
6-30-14 Petition for Rehearing En Banc
An excerpt:
The panel decision conflicts with the May 19, 2014 decision of the United States Supreme Court in Petrella v.Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, Inc., 134 S.Ct. 132; 188 L.Ed.2d 979 (2014) (Petrella). Petrella held that courts may not override Congress’ judgment and apply equitable defenses to summarily dispose of claims at law filed within a statute of limitations established by Congress. The panel’s Per Curiam decision ruled that Plaintiff-Appellant Stockbridge-Munsee Community’s (Stockbridge) damages claims, which were filed within the congressionally established limitations period, are barred by the Sherrill equitable defense. Stockbridge-Munsee Cmty. v. New York; Slip Op. at 8, 2014 WL 2782191 (2d Cir. June 20, 2014) (Slip Opinion attached as Appendix). The panel’s failure to follow Petrella warrants en banc review under Fed. R. Civ. P. 35.
Panel materials here.
You must be logged in to post a comment.