Here is the order and opinion:
7-9-15 271 Order Vacating Decision and Remanding
News coverage here.
Here are more materials in the case captioned Cayuga Nation v. Tanner (N.D. N.Y.):
38 DCT Order Denying Unity Council Motion to Intervene
41 Plaintiffs Reply in Support of PI
42 Plaintiffs Response to Tanner Motion to Dismiss
50 DCT Order Dismissing Claims
52-1 Motion for Reconsideration
Apparently, the Halftown faction (the plaintiffs here) is continuing the fight for gaming, while the Unity Council group has been dismissed from the case. We posted materials on this case here.
Originally filed by Clint Halftown’s group against the Village of Union Springs to enjoin the village’s effort to regulate Class II bingo; now a challenge to the Halftown group by the Cayuga Nation Unity Council. News coverage here.
Here are the materials:
27 Cayuga Nation Unity Council Motion to Intervene
28 Cayuga Nation Unity Council Motion to Dismiss
32 Defendants Cross-Motion to Dismiss
The IBIA decision on the Cayuga leadership dispute is here.
A state court decision on the leadership dispute is here.
Here are the materials in Aguayo v. Jewell (S.D. Cal.):
54-1 Aguayo Motion for Summary J
57-1 Federal Cross Motion for Summary J
Aguayo v. Jewell Judgement in Civil Case.11.18.14 (1)
Aguayo v. Jewell.Order Dismissing.11.18.14
Prior post in this proceeding here. Related posts here and here.
The Court declined to review Quantum Entertainment Ltd. v. Dept. of Interior. Order list here.
Lower court materials here.
Cert stage briefs:
Quantum Entertainment Cert Petition
Here is the decision in Cayuga Indian Nation v. Eastern Region Director, Bureau of Indian Affairs (IBIA):
And a related press lreease:
Here:
Quantum Entertainment Cert Petition
Question presented:
Whether the court of appeals erred in holding that Landgraf v. USI Film Products, 511 U.S. 244 (1994), implicitly overruled McNair v. Knott, 302 U.S. 369 (1937), and Ewell v. Daggs, 108 U.S. 143 (1883), by requiring the conclusion that a statute eliminating legal impediments to the enforcement of contracts has an impermissible “retroactive effect” when applied to a contract that was entered into before the statute’s enactment but performed without complaint until afterwards.
Lower court materials here.
You must be logged in to post a comment.