Here is the order in Goodeagle v. United States (Fed. Cl.):
federal trust breach
Quapaw Tribe Prevails in Series of Trust Breach Claims against US
Here are the materials in Quapaw Tribe v. United States (Fed. Cl.):
83 Quapaw Motion for Partial Summary J
An excerpt:
This case involves the claims of the Quapaw Indian Tribe of Oklahoma for breach of fiduciary duty and breach of trust obligations. On April 6, 2015, the Quapaw Tribe filed a motion for partial summary judgment on the following three grounds: (1) that the Government is liable for annual educational payments of $1,000 from 1932 to the present under the Treaty of 1833; (2) that the Government is liable for $31,680.80 in unauthorized disbursements from the Quapaw Tribe’s trust accounts, as found in the 1995 Tribal Trust Funds Reconciliation Project Report prepared by Arthur Andersen LLP; and (3) that the Government is liable for $70,330.71 in transactions that should have been credited to the Quapaw Tribe’s trust accounts but were not, as reported in the 2010 Quapaw Analysis.
Federal Court Dismisses Claim against Utah Police for Shooting Indian Man
Here are the materials in Jones v. United States (Fed. Cl.):
Goodeagle Plaintiffs May Sue for Pre-1994 IIM Trust Account Breach
Here are the materials in Goodeagle v. United States (Fed. Cl.):
Wyandot Nation v. United States Breach of Trust Complaint re: Huron Indian Cemetery
Here is the complaint in Wyandot Nation of Kansas v. United States (Fed. Cl.):
Quapaw Partially Prevails in Dispute over Undistributed Indian Claims Commission Judgment Funds
Here are the materials in Quapaw Tribe of Oklahoma v. United States (Fed. Cl.):
59 US Motion for Partial Summary J
An excerpt:
In deciding the cross-motions for partial summary judgment on this issue, the Court considered at least two factors. Foremost, the Court notes that fact discovery was still ongoing in this case when the motions were filed. As of March 31, 2015, the Government anticipated producing over 452,000 document images to Plaintiff before the close of fact discovery on April 16,2015. Gov.’s Status Report, Dkt. No. 81, at 5. The Court declines to draw evidentiary conclusions when material facts are in dispute and ongoing discovery may yet shed more light on the issues. Second, the Court must consider the parties’ respective burdens. To prevail at the summary judgment stage, Plaintiff must sufficiently allege a breach of trust by the Government through affirmative evidence of nonpayment so that the finder of fact could not reasonably rule in favor of the Government. See Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 249–50, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986). The Court finds that the Government’s evidence of accounting records and meeting minutes sufficiently rebuts Plaintiff’s argument so as to create a continuing and genuine dispute. On the other hand, the Government has not convinced the Court that records of emptied Treasury accounts and presumptions of regularity are sufficient to decide this issue. Plaintiff’s evidence of meeting minutes and the conclusions of the Quapaw Analysis satisfy the Court, again, that the issue is in genuine dispute. Therefore, the Court denies both motions for partial summary judgment on the question of whether the Tribe is entitled to recover some or all of the trust funds.
We posted earlier on this matter here.
Inter-Tribal Council of Arizona Sues United States for Breach of Trust
Here is the complaint in Inter-Tribal Council Of Arizona Inc. v. United States (Fed. Cl.):
CSKT Allotment Owner’s Trust Breach Claims Dismissed
Here are the materials in Liberty v. Jewell (D. Mont.):
Mishewal Wappo Tribe Loses Trust Breach/Federal Recognition Claim
Here is the order in Mishewal Wappo Tribe of Alexander Valley v. Jewell (N.D. Cal.):
Briefs are here.
Trust Breach Claims for Compensation re: Flooding of Cheyenne River Sioux Reservation Dismissed
Here are the materials in LeBeau v. United States (D. S.D.):
An excerpt:
Plaintiffs’ claims accrued decades ago and are therefore barred by the statute of limitations. As this court stated in 2013, it is sympathetic to the claims made by plaintiffs. But even sympathetic claims must comply with jurisdictional requirements. Because there is no valid waiver of sovereign immunity, this court has no jurisdiction to entertain this suit. Plaintiffs may deserve compensation, but that compensation must come from Congress.
Prior suit materials are here.
You must be logged in to post a comment.