Here are the materials in Farden v. United States (D.N.M.):

Here are the materials in Wilhite v. Awe Kualawaache Care Center (D. Mont.):
29 Motion to Dismiss – sovereign immunity
Prior post here.
Here are the materials in Matt v. United States (D. Mont.):
45 DCT Order Granting Motion to Quash
An excerpt:
Matt seeks documents in the possession of the Fort Belknap Community Council. (Doc. 26-1 at 2.) In order to satisfy Matt’s request, Council would be required to take affirmative action to produce tribal documents. (Doc. 37 at 3.) If the Court granted Matt’s request the judgment would “interfere with public administration” of the tribe and would “compel [the sovereign] to act.” Maxwell, 708 F.3d at 1087-90. The recovery sought in this case would operate against the tribe. Matt should not be allowed to “circumvent tribal immunity” by addressing the Subpoena Duces Tecum to Mark Azure instead of to the tribe.
An excerpt:
The Council entered into an ISDEAA contract for the maintenance of the roads on Matt’s property. The Council and its tribal members should be deemed part of the BIA and subject to the FTCA. The Council and its tribal members should be subject to discovery related to the construction and maintenance of the roads covered by the ISDEAA contract.
Here is the opinion in Colbert v. United States.
Briefs:
Here is the opinion and judgment in Owen v. United States (D. S.D.), a FTCA case — Owen v USA
You must be logged in to post a comment.