Here is the unpublished opinion in Tri-Star Theme Builders, Inc. v. OneBeacon Ins. Co.
Ninth Circuit
Split Ninth Circuit Panel Affirms Injunction against Arizona Immigration Law (S.B. 1070)
Here is today’s opinion in United States v. Arizona.
Here is the Tohono O’odham Nation’s amicus brief in a related case.
Ninth Circuit Affirms USFS Decision to Conduct “Suction Dredge” in Klamath
… over Judge W. Fletcher’s “emphatic[]” dissent.
Here is the opinion in Karuk Tribe v. USFS.
An excerpt from the majority opinion:
The mining laws provide miners like The New 49’erswith the “right, not the mere privilege” to prospect for goldin the Klamath River and its tributaries. We therefore find itis most accurate to say that the mining laws, not the USFS,authorize the mining activities at issue here. The USFS hasadopted a simple review process to sort between those miningactivities it will regulate in order to conserve forest resources,and those activities it will not regulate because such regulation would be unnecessary and unduly interfere with miningrights. The USFS’s limited and internal review of an NOI forthe purpose of confirming that the miner does not need to submit a Plan for approval (because the activities are unlikely tocause any significant disturbance of the forest or river) is anagency decision not to regulate legal private conduct. In otherwords, the USFS’s decision at issue results in agency inaction, not agency action.
And from Judge Fletcher’s dissent:
The Forest Service had several available choices. It couldhave consulted under Section 7 when it promulgated the regulation for dredge mining under NOIs. That is, it could haveconsulted when it set the threshold criterion for an NOI asmining that “might cause significant disturbance of surfaceresources” including fisheries habitat. Or it could have consulted under Section 7 when it formulated habitat-protectivecriteria for approving NOIs. That is, it could have consultedwhen District Ranger Vandiver formulated his criteria forapproving the NOIs for the Happy Camp District. Or, finally, in the absence of criteria such as those formulated for theHappy Camp District, it could have consulted under Section7 with respect to each individual NOI.
The one choice that was not available to the Forest Servicewas never to consult. Yet that is the choice the Forest Servicemade. In making that choice, the Forest Service violated Section 7 of the ESA.
I respectfully but emphatically dissent from the conclusionof the majority to the contrary.
Ninth Circuit Affirms Wapato Heritage v. Evans (2-1)
Here is the unpublished opinion.
Judge Tallman in dissent objected to federal subject matter jurisdiction over the claims.
Ninth Circuit Affirms Injunction against Caballero in Trademark Claim
Here is the unpublished order in Shingle Springs Miwok v. Caballero: CA9 Memorandum.
The materials are here.
Ninth Circuit Briefing in Shingle Springs Miwok v. Caballero
Here:
Here is the issue, according to the tribe’s brief:
Appellee Shingle Springs Band of Miwok Indians (hereinafter, “Tribe”) has operated its federally recognized tribal government under the name “Shingle Springs Band of Miwok Indians” (the “Mark” or the “Tribe’s Mark”)[FN1] for over thirty years. During this time the Tribe provided governmental and educational services to its members and the public and its Mark became well known. Appellant Cesar Caballero is not a member of the Tribe, but identifies himself as a person of “Miwok” ancestry. In 2008, after he learned the Tribe planned to open a casino, he began to do business under the Tribe’s Mark and represent to third parties, through local and federal government filings, that he was the “Chief” and “Tribal Historian” of the “Shingle Springs Band of Miwok Indians.” These representations were false.
Appeal of Fake “Pembina” Indians before the Ninth Circuit
Here are some of the materials in Neal v. State of Arizona, an attempt to force Arizona to recognize the driver’s licenses and car registration of the fake “Pembina Band”:
U.S. v. Has the Eagle — Ninth Circuit Affirms Murder Conviction
Here.
Ninth Circuit Affirms Wapato Heritage v. Evans — UPDATED
Here is today’s opinion. A related unpublished opinion disposing of other claims presumably will appear later in the day is here.
The briefs are here.
Lower court materials.
An excerpt detailing the issue:
Plaintiff-Appellant Wapato Heritage, L.L.C. (Wapato),appeals the district court’s order denying its motion for summary judgment and motion for reconsideration, and grantingDefendants-Appellees’ motion for summary judgment andmotion to dismiss. We address whether Wapato’spredecessor-in-interest, William Wapato Evans, Jr. (Evans),effectively exercised his option to renew a lease agreement(Lease) between Evans and certain Native American landowners (Landowners) covering real property known as MosesAllotment No. 8 (MA-8). The district court ruled that Evansdid not comply with the Lease’s requirements that he notifyall the Landowners that he intended to renew the Lease.Wapato, the current holder of all the Lessee’s rights under theLease, timely appealed.
Ninth Circuit Dismisses Bishop Community Land Claim against City of Los Angeles under Rule 19
Here is the opinion in Paiute-Shoshone Indians of the Bishop Community v. City of Los Angeles.
An excerpt:
Plaintiff Paiute-Shoshone Indians of the Bishop Community of the Bishop Colony, California, an Indian tribe formallyrecognized by the United States, filed this action againstDefendant City of Los Angeles for an order restoring Plaintiffto possession of land that the City took long ago in a deal withthe United States. The district court dismissed the actionunder Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(7) because itruled that, under Rule 19 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the United States was a required party that Plaintiffcould not join. The district court certified the appealability ofits order under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b). Upon Plaintiff’s timelyrequest, we agreed to hear this interlocutory appeal, and we now affirm.
And the briefs:
Turtle Talk 
You must be logged in to post a comment.