indispensable party

Mudarri v. State of Washington — Challenge to Puyallup Gaming Compact

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

In this case, the Washington Court of Appeals, Division II, rejected various state constitutional challenges to the Washington tribal gaming compacts by an individual who wanted to operate his own gambling enterprise outside of the tribal compacting structure. As you can imagine, Rule 19 (the Washington version) was dispositive.

Here is the opinion.

Oregon Court of Appeals Revives Suit on Oregon Gaming Compacts

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

The case is Dewberry v. Kulongowski, and it involves my favorite court rule, the indispensable party!

From the opinion:

Relators appeal from a judgment dismissing their petition for an alternative writ of mandamus. They argue that the trial court erred in concluding that they failed to establish that they do not have a “plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of the law,” ORS 34.110, and that the trial court misapplied ORCP 29 and ORS 28.110 in the present proceeding. As explained below, we agree with relators in certain respects, albeit at some points for reasons not advanced by the parties, and conclude that relators did not have a “plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of the law,” ORS 34.110, in the form of a declaratory judgment action. Accordingly, we reverse and remand.