Here is the opinion in Sauk-Suiattle Indian Tribe v. City of Seattle.
Briefs here.
Here:
Here is today’s order list.
The denied petition is Big Horn County Electric Cooperative Inc. v. Big Man.
Here are the materials in Acres Bonusing Inc. v. Ramsey (N.D. Cal.):
Prior post here.
Here is the unpublished order in Numa Corp. v. Diven, formerly Cedarville Rancheria v. Diven.
Briefs here.
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.
Turtle Talk 
You must be logged in to post a comment.