en banc petition

Ninth Circuit to Re-Hear Big Lagoon Rancheria Appeal Sept. 17, 2014

Matthew L.M. Fletcher2 Comments

Here:

Big Lagoon — CA9 Order Setting Oral Argument

En banc materials here.

Panel materials here.

Cert Opposition Brief in Dollar General v. Mississippi Choctaw Tribal Court Jurisdiction Matter

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here:

Mississippi Choctaw Cert Opposition

Cert petition here.

Second Circuit Denies En Banc Review in Stockbridge-Munsee Land Claims

Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Here:

Stockbridge CA2 En Banc Denial

The petition is here.

 

BIA Decision Approving Glendale Area Trust Land Acquisition for Gaming Purposes for Tohono O’Odham Nation

Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Here:

2014-07-03 Washburn Letter to Norris re Trust Decision

This is on remand from the Ninth Circuit’s mandate.

Second Circuit En banc Petition by Stockbridge-Munsee Community

Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

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.

Dollar General Corp. v. Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians Cert Petition

Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Here:

Dollar General Cert Petition

Questions presented:

Whether Indian tribal courts have jurisdiction to adjudicate civil tort claims against nonmembers, including as a means of regulating the conduct of nonmembers who enter into consensual relationships with a tribe or its members?

Lower court materials here.

The court also voted 9-5 to deny the en banc petition: CA5 Order Denying Dolgencorp En Banc Petition

En banc petition materials here.

Panel materials here.

Lower court decision and materials here.

Ninth Circuit Grants En Banc Review in Big Lagoon Rancheria v. State of California

Matthew L.M. Fletcher5 Comments

Here:

2014 0611 Order Granting Petition for Rehearing En Banc

En banc petition here. Supporting amicus briefs here.

Lower court materials here.

National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers Amicus Brief Filed in United States v. Zepeda

Matthew L.M. Fletcher3 Comments

Here:

Criminal Defense Attorney Amicus

Prior posts here (order granting en banc review), and links to briefs here.

 

Amici Supporting Big Lagoon Rancheria’s En Banc Petition

Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Here:

Big Lagoon v California – 64 – US brief

Big Lagoon v California – 67-2 – NCAI USET brief

Big Lagoon v California – 68 – CILS Ltr

The en banc petition is here.

The panel materials are here.

Fifth Circuit Panel Issues Amended Opinion in Dolgencorp v. Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians

Matthew L.M. Fletcher2 Comments

Here is the amended opinion:

CA5 Amended Opinion

The main amendment appears to be that the panel will no longer rely upon the Ninth Circuit’s holding in Water Wheel — and instead finds that the tribe retains jurisdiction over the underlying tort claim under the Montana 1 consensual relations exception.

The court also voted 9-5 to deny the en banc petition: CA5 Order Denying Dolgencorp En Banc Petition

En banc petition materials here.

Panel materials here.

Lower court decision and materials here.