Here are the materials in Evans Energy Partners LLC v. Seminole Tribe of Florida Inc.:

Here are the materials in Evans Energy Partners LLC v. Seminole Tribe of Florida Inc.:
Here is today’s order list.
Here are the cert stage materials in Clay v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue.
Here:
Question presented:
The question presented is: Whether the clear language of Title 25 of the Code of Federal Regulations, and the exclusive authority over federally recognized Indian Tribes granted to the Secretary of Interior under 25 U.S.C. § 2, controls the determination of how the Miccosukee Tribe compensates its members for the use of their lands, to the exclusion of any other federal agency, including the Internal Revenue Service.
Lower court materials here.
Here are the materials in Easley v. Hummingbird Funds (S.D. Ala.):
Eleventh Circuit briefs:
Here is the petition in Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of Florida v. United States:
Question presented:
The 2014 Tribal General Welfare Exclusion Act states that, for income tax purposes, “[g]ross income does not include the value of any Indian general welfare benefit.”
The question presented is whether contrary to that plain command, gross income includes “Indian general welfare benefits” when those benefits are derived from gaming revenue pursuant to the 1988 Indian Gaming Regulatory Act.
Here is the petition in Jim v. United States:
Questions presented:
Whether treaties with Indian tribes must be construed consistent with that tribe’s present-sense understanding of the treaty.
Whether the Miccosukee Tribe’s long-standing method of compensation for use of Tribal member lands and distributing revenue from land to its members can be considered a “mere formalism” to avoid inclusion and taxation as income to the members when the Tribe’s chosen method of compensation is soundly in line with federal law and policy.
Whether the Assistant Secretary of the Interior through its designated representative can interpret, waive, modify or exempt payments made to tribal members from inclusion as income.
Lower court materials here.
UPDATE:
Here is the unpublished opinion:
Here is an excerpt:
The question in this appeal is whether the doctrine of claim preclusion bars the Seminole Tribe of Florida (the “Tribe”) from again challenging the imposition of a Florida state tax on utility services, which the Tribe uses to conduct on reservation activities that are regulated by federal law. Concluding that the requirements of claim preclusion have been met and that no exception to the doctrine applies, we affirm the district court’s dismissal with prejudice of the Tribe’s complaint.
Briefs here.
Here is the opinion in United States v. Jim.
Briefs here.
Here is the unpublished opinion in Asker v. Seminole Tribe of Florida Inc.:
Briefs here.
You must be logged in to post a comment.