Here are the materials in Acres Bonusing Inc. v. Ramsey (N.D. Cal.):
Prior post here.
California Federal Court Dismisses Final Two Defendants in Acres Bonusing v. Ramsey (formerly Marston)
Ninth Circuit
Ninth Circuit Rejects Tribal Immunity under Bankruptcy Act
Here is the unpublished order in Numa Corp. v. Diven, formerly Cedarville Rancheria v. Diven.
Briefs here.
Ninth Circuit Reverses Dismissal of San Carlos Apache Health Care Contract Support Costs Suit
Here is the opinion in San Carlos Apache Tribe v. Beccera.
An excerpt:
A simplified example clarifies this scheme. Assume that a tribe administers a $3 million healthcare program for its members. It costs the tribe $500,000 in administrative costs to do so. IHS therefore will pay the tribe $3.5 million. Additionally, the tribe recovers $1 million for those procedures from outside insurers. It is statutorily required to spend that $1 million on health care as well.
But there is a hole in this statutory scheme. Who pays the CSC for that additional $1 million in health care that the tribe must provide with its third-party revenue? At the heart of this lawsuit is Plaintiff-Appellant San Carlos Apache Tribe’s (“the Tribe”) contention that IHS must cover those additional CSC.
Briefs here.
Ninth Circuit Oral Argument in Swinomish v. Lummi [U.S. v. Washington subproceeding 19-01]
Ninth Circuit Oral Argument in Upper Skagit v. Sauk-Suiattle [U.S. v. Washington subproceeding 20-01]
Ninth Circuit Briefs in Weaver v. Gregory [section 1983 suit against tribal officials over employment claims by fired tribal police officer]
SCTOUS Grants United States and Arizona Petitions in Navajo Water Case
Here was yesterday’s order.
Prior post here.
Ninth Circuit Rejects Challenge to Tribal Wind Farm
Here is the unpublished opinion in Backcountry Against Dumps v. Bureau of Indian Affairs.
Briefs here.
Ninth Circuit Materials in Backcountry Against Dumps v. Bureau of Indian Affairs [Campo Band Wind Energy Project]
Slockish v. Dept. of Transportation Cert Petition
Here:
Question presented:
Whether the Ninth Circuit’s mootness ruling warrants summary reversal where the panel clearly misapprehended governing law on mootness and on the authority of federal courts to order equitable relief affecting nonparties.
Lower court materials here.
Turtle Talk 
You must be logged in to post a comment.