Here:
UPDATE: oral argument audio here.
Lower court materials:
59-1 Buena Vista Rancheria Motion to Intervene
65 DCT Order Denying Motion to Intervene
Materials in related cases:
Here:
UPDATE: oral argument audio here.
Lower court materials:
59-1 Buena Vista Rancheria Motion to Intervene
65 DCT Order Denying Motion to Intervene
Materials in related cases:
Here are the materials in Amsterdam v. Office of Hawaiian Affairs:
Here:
Big Lagoon v California – 64 – US brief
Big Lagoon v California – 67-2 – NCAI USET brief
Big Lagoon v California – 68 – CILS Ltr
The en banc petition is here.
The panel materials are here.
This is a trademark dispute between the federally recognized Shingle Springs Band of Miwok Indians and an unaffiliated man purporting to act as “Chief” of the “Shingle Springs Band of Miwok Indians.”
Here:
034 – Brief of Appellant Cesar Caballero(81539037_1)
040-1 – Answering Brief of Appellee Shingle Springs Band of Miwok Indians(81902896_1)
Lower court materials here.
Here are the opposition briefs in Alaska v. Jewell:
Katie John Cert Opp [A second brief with the appendix: AFN Alaska v Jewell BIO app]
Cert petition here.
Here is the unpublished opinion in Dupris v. McDonald.
An excerpt:
In 2006, Jesse Dupris and Jeremy Reed (the “Plaintiffs”) were arrested on tribal charges for assaults they did not commit. In 2008, they commenced this action against the members of the federal Task Force that arrested them and the United States under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), and the Federal Tort Claims Act (“FTCA”), 28 U.S.C. §§ 1346(b)(1), 2671-2680. The district court granted summary judgment for the defendants and Plaintiffs have appealed. We affirm, concluding that: (1) the Plaintiffs’ claims against two members of the Task Force are barred by the applicable statute of limitations; (2) the remaining individual defendants were entitled to qualified immunity; and (3) the United States is immune from liability under the FTCA pursuant to the discretionary function exception.
Briefs and lower court materials here.
Here is the unpublished opinion. An excerpt:
The district court concluded next that joinder would not be feasible because the Tribe enjoys sovereign immunity as a federally recognized Indian tribe. Appellants challenge the validity of the Tribe’s federally recognized status but concede its existence. Indeed, the Tribe has been federally recognized since at least 1985, see Indian Tribal Entities Recognized and Eligible to Receive Services, 50 Fed. Reg. 6055-02 (Feb. 13, 1985), and it thus has “the immunities and privileges available to other federally acknowledged Indian tribes by virtue of their government-to-government relationship with the United States,” Indian Entities Recognized and Eligible to Receive Services from the Board of Indian Affairs, 77 Fed. Reg. 47,868-01 (Aug. 10, 2012).
Briefs and link to oral argument audio here.
Lower court materials here.
You must be logged in to post a comment.