Here is the opinion in Smith v. Landrum (Mich. Ct. App.):
The question presented in this quiet title action is whether a state court has subject-matter jurisdiction to decide an easement dispute in favor of a non-Indian on land owned by a non-Indian when the land is located on an Indian reservation. The trial court concluded that it did not, and therefore entered a final order granting defendants’ motion for summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(4) (lack of subject-matter jurisdiction). For the reasons outlined below, we hold that the trial court had subject-matter jurisdiction over the easement dispute. We therefore reverse the order granting defendant’s motion for summary disposition, and remand for further proceedings.
2nd Annual Anishinaabe Racial Justice Conference
May 24-26, 2019
Visit the event page for conference details and to register. For more information please email firstname.lastname@example.org.
Here are the materials in Wichtman v. Martorello (W.D. Mich.):
1-1 motion to quash
Download PDF announcement for assistant attorney here.
Download PDF announcement for law clerk here.
Here are the materials in Turunen v. Michigan Department of Natural Resources (W.D. Mich.):
39 MDNR Motion for Summary J
42 Turunen Response
47 MDNR Reply
The claim survived an earlier motion to dismiss here.
A Tribal Attorney position was posted this morning at KBIC. Please feel free to forward this opportunity.