Northern District of New York

2nd Circuit Affirms Oneida Fee into Trust Judgment

Sarah M Donnelly1 Comment

Here are the materials in the matter of Upstate Citizens for Equality v. United States of America, 15-cv-01688 (Nov. 9, 2016):

Doc. 100 Brief for Plaintiffs-Appellants Town of Vernon, New York, Town of Verona, Abraham Acee and Arthur Strife

Doc. 101 Brief and Special Appendix for Plaintiffs Appellants Upstate Citizens for Equality, Inc., David Brown Vickers, Richard Tallcot, Scott Peterman and Daniel T. Warren

Doc. 134 Reply Brief for Plaintiffs-Appellants Town of Vernon, New York, Town of Verona, Abraham Acee and Arthur Strife

Doc. 149 Reply Brief for Plaintiffs-Appellants Upstate Citizens for Equality, Inc., David Brown Vickers, Richard Tallcot, Scott Peterman and Daniel T. Warren

Doc. 151 Response Brief of the Federal Defendants-Appellees

Doc. 183 Judgment

Link to previously posted lower court materials here.

Second Circuit Briefs in Cayuga Nation v. Tanner

Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Here:

Appellant Brief

Appellee Brief

Lower court materials here and here.

Update in Cayuga Nation v. Tanner

Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Here are more materials in the case captioned Cayuga Nation v. Tanner (N.D. N.Y.):

38 DCT Order Denying Unity Council Motion to Intervene

41 Plaintiffs Reply in Support of PI

42 Plaintiffs Response to Tanner Motion to Dismiss

50 DCT Order Dismissing Claims

52-1 Motion for Reconsideration

60 Tanner Opposition

61 Plaintiffs Reply

Apparently, the Halftown faction (the plaintiffs here) is continuing the fight for gaming, while the Unity Council group has been dismissed from the case. We posted materials on this case here.

Challenge to Oneida Fee to Trust Defeated

Matthew L.M. Fletcher4 Comments

Here are the materials in Upstate Citizens for Equality v. Jewell (N.D. N.Y.):

79-1 US Motion for Summary J

80 UCE Response

81 US Reply

84 DCT Order

And the materials in Central New York Fair Business Association v. Jewell (N.D. N.Y.):

114-1 US Motion for Summary J

119 Response

122 Reply

127 DCT Order

And the materials in Town of Verona v. Jewell (N.D. N.Y.):

64-9 Town Motion for Summary J

65-1 US Motion for Summary J

67 Town Response

68 US Response

69 US Reply

81 DCT Order

Federal Court Challenge to Onondaga Nation ICW Jurisdiction Defeated

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here are the materials in Pitre v. Shenandoah (N.D. N.Y):

12-5 Onondaga Nation Motion to Dismiss

20-5 Onondaga County Motion to Dismiss

34-2 Oswego County Motion to Dismiss

45 DCT Order

Supreme Court Cert Opposition Briefs in Stockbridge-Munsee Land Claim

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here (thanks to the Supreme Court Project page):

State of New York Brief in Opposition

Oneida Indian Nation Brief in Opposition

The petition is here.

Law Professors Amicus Brief in Stockbridge-Munsee Community v. New York

Kate Fort1 Comment

Here.

Previous coverage here.

Materials in Cayuga Nation v. Tanner

Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Originally filed by Clint Halftown’s group against the Village of Union Springs to enjoin the village’s effort to regulate Class II bingo; now a challenge to the Halftown group by the Cayuga Nation Unity Council. News coverage here.

Here are the materials:

1 Complaint

5-1 Motion for PI

7 DCT Show Cause Order

27 Cayuga Nation Unity Council Motion to Intervene

28 Cayuga Nation Unity Council Motion to Dismiss

32 Defendants Cross-Motion to Dismiss

33 Plaintiffs Response

The IBIA decision on the Cayuga leadership dispute is here.

A state court decision on the leadership dispute is here.

Stockbridge-Munsee Community v. New York Cert Petition

Matthew L.M. Fletcher3 Comments

Here:

11-7-14 Stockbridge-Munsee Cert Petition_(filed)

Questions presented:

In Petrella v. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, Inc., 134 S. Ct. 1962 (2014), this Court held that courts may not override Congress’ judgment and apply laches to summarily dispose of claims at law filed within a statute of limitations established by Congress, thereby foreclosing the possibility of any form of relief. Equitable remedies may be foreclosed at the litigation’s outset due to a delay in commencing suit only in “extraordinary circumstances,” such as the need to prevent unjust hardship on innocent third parties. Id. at 1978.

The question presented is: Where Petitioner’s claims were filed within the statutory-limitations period established by Congress, did the court of appeals contravene this Court’s
decision in Petrella by invoking delay-based equitable principles to summarily dismiss all of Petitioner’s federal treaty, statutory and common-law claims, including one for money damages as upheld by this Court in County of Oneida v. Oneida Indian Nation of N.Y., 470 U.S. 226, 246 (1985)?

Lower court materials here. En banc petition materials here.

Second Circuit Denies En Banc Review in Stockbridge-Munsee Land Claims

Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Here:

Stockbridge CA2 En Banc Denial

The petition is here.