Update in Jensen v. EXC, Inc. [bus accident on Navajo lands]

Here are the materials in Jensen v. EXC Inc. (D. Ariz.):

71 Amended Complaint

116 Jensen MSJ

119 Response

121 Reply

126 DCT Order Denying MSJ

181 EXC Pre-Trial Brief

200 Verdict

220 Jensen Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law

221 Response

222 Reply

223 DCT Order Denying 220

And here are the Ninth Circuit briefs (so far):

Opening Brief

Answer Brief

Prior posts on this case are here.

Cert Stage Briefing Complete in Jensen v. EXC Inc.


Jensen Cert Petition

EXC Cert Opp

Jensen Reply

Lower court materials here.

Jensen v. EXC Cert Petition


Jensen Cert Petition

Questions presented:

1. Whether federal courts are free to ignore congressionally confirmed Indian treaty rights that impliedly reserve tribal jurisdiction over nonmember conduct within an Indian reservation, thereby effecting an impermissible judicial abrogation of those treaty rights.
2. Whether federal courts may disregard the Supreme Court’s multifactor analysis for determining the status of a roadway existing on tribal trust land when deciding if an Indian tribe has inherent sovereign jurisdiction to adjudicate a collision occurring on that roadway between a tribally regulated tour bus and a passenger vehicle carrying tribal members.
3. Whether federal courts may decline to apply the consensual relationship exception of Montana v. United States, 450 U.S. 544 (1981), because nonmember conduct occurred on land deemed to be the equivalent of non-Indian fee land, where (a) the Supreme Court has indicated that Montana’s consensual relationship exception can justify tribal jurisdiction over nonmember conduct occurring on non-Indian fee land or its equivalent, and (b) there exists a consensual relationship of the qualifying kind between the tribe and the nonmembers.
4. Whether federal courts may deny that an Indian tribe has inherent civil jurisdiction, pursuant to the second Montana exception, over nonmembers’ commercial touring of tribal lands that results in a fatal tour bus/auto collision where (a) the nonmembers’ conduct implicates the tribe’s interests in governing itself, controlling internal relations, and superintending land use, and (b) the impact of the commercial touring activity, unconstrained by tribal regulatory authority, is demonstrably serious and imperils the tribe’s sovereign interests.

Lower court materials here.