Oklahoma Supreme Court

Oklahoma Sup. Ct. Decides Land Title Dispute involving Non-Recognized Tribe

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is the short opinion in Perme v. Southern Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma.

An exceprt:

In August 2000, Dynamic Gaming Solutions, Inc. (Dynamic), entered into an agreement with Gary Ridge, who represented himself as the Chief of the Southern Cherokee Nation. Pursuant to said agreement, Dynamic agreed to purchase two pieces of property in Webber Falls, Oklahoma, for the purpose of constructing a casino. Such casino operation was represented to be legally possible, according to Mr. Ridge, because the Southern Cherokee were a legitimate Indian tribe and, therefore, were a sovereign nation able to construct and operate a gaming business. Mr. Perme, who was a principal in Dynamic, agreed, as part of such transaction, to purchase eighty (80) acres for the benefit of Mr. Ridge and his tribe. The subject eighty (80) acres was deeded on August 28, 2000, by Richard A. Hayes and his wife, Margaret A. Hayes, to “The United States of America to be held in trust for the Southern Cherokee Indian Tribe.”

Oklahoma Supreme Court Affirms Miami Tribe’s Immunity in Seneca Telephone Suit

Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Here is the opinion in Seneca Telephone v. Miami Tribe.

An excerpt:

In the present matter the Tribe was not engaged in any telecommunication activity. The Tribe was engaged in excavation work for another tribe on land held in fee as well as in trust by the United States Government. The United States Congress has not unequivocally waived sovereign immunity for the activities involved in the instant matter. The Tribe has not waived its sovereign immunity at any level in the present case and all issues herein presented are fully satisfied by our finding of immunity and, therefore, the opinion of the Court of Civil Appeals is vacated and the trial court is reversed and remanded with instructions to dismiss.

Lower court materials here.

Okla. SCT Grants Cert to Decide Tribal Immunity Case

Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Here is the order granting certiorari in Seneca Telephone Co. v. Miami Tribe of Oklahoma: Oklahoma SCT Order

The Miami Tribe was the petitioner.

Here are most of the lower court briefs.

And the lower court opinion.

Oklahoma Supreme Court Applies Tobacco MSA to Native Wholesale Supply

Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Here is the opinion in Oklahoma ex rel. Edmundson v. Native Wholesale Supply.

An excerpt:

This appeal presents two dispositive issues for the court’s resolution: (1) Is an Oklahoma court a constitutionally sanctioned forum for the exercise of personal jurisdiction to adjudicate an alleged violation of a state statute by Native Wholesale Supply, a nonresident corporation that claims to have no minimum contacts with Oklahoma? and (2) Does federal law bar Oklahoma from enforcing the Complementary Act against Native Wholesale Supply, a tribally-chartered corporation wholly owned by an individual of Native-American ancestry? We answer the first question in the affirmative and the second in the negative.

Choctaw and Chickasaw Nations Win Injunction against Oklahoma Courts for Accepting Jurisdiction over Claims under their Gaming Compact

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is the order in Choctaw Nation and Chickasaw Nation v. State of Oklahoma (W.D. Okla.): choctawchickasaworder.

If you’ll recall, the Oklahoma Supreme Court in a series of cases held that state courts were “courts of competent jurisdiction” to take jurisdiction over tort claims brought under a Class III gaming compact approved by Oklahoma voters and, later, several Oklahoma tribes.

Oklahoma tribes (with the State consenting) then invoked the arbitration provision of the compacts, arguing the Supreme Court had violated the terms of the compact. They were successful.

This federal suit followed. Very interesting case.

Oklahoma Supreme Court Orders Transfer of Indian Child Welfare Case to Puyallup Tribal Court

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is the opinion in In the Matter of M.S.

The court’s syllabus:

The Puyallup Tribe of Indians moved to transfer jurisdiction of a case involving two Puyallup Tribe Indian children to tribal court or, in the alternative, to change placement to a tribal member after the termination of the parental rights of their parents. The trial court denied relief, finding “good cause” for denying transfer existed because of the length of time the State had exercised jurisdiction prior to the Tribe’s motion, the relationships the children had developed and the relevant evidence located in Oklahoma. The Tribe appealed, and the Court of Civil Appeals affirmed. This Court previously granted certiorari.

Oklahoma Choctaw and Chickasaw Nations Federal Complaint re: State Court Jurisdiction over Casino Cases

Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Here is the complaint in Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma v. State of Oklahoma (W.D. Okla.): Choctaw Nation & Chicasaw Nation v Oklahoma Complaint.

At issue are the Oklahoma Supreme Court decisions holding that state courts are “courts of competent jurisdiction” in tort claims against tribal casinos under the Oklahoma model gaming compact (opinions here and here.).

Here is an August 2009 arbitration award affirming that state courts do not have such jurisdiction — Choctaw Chickasaw Oklahoma Arbitration Decision. And the joint referral to arbitration — Joint Referral to Binding Arbitration.

News analysis here, via Pechanga.

Oklahoma Supreme Court Vacates Injunction against Oklahoma Tax Commission from Enforcing Tax Compact against Osage Smokeshops

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is the opinion in Feather Smoke Shops v. Oklahoma Tax Commission.

An excerpt from the dissent:

¶2 I believe the “dispute” is not subject to arbitration because it is not one “arising in the interpretation or performance of th[e] Compact.” I reach this conclusion because the undisputed material facts show that the State, through the actions of the Oklahoma Tax Commission, is simply in breach of the unambiguous “favored nations” provision of the Compact. This provision grants the Osage Nation the “option” to “automatically… incorporate” more favorable terms of a tobacco tax compact with another Indian tribe into the Osage Nation Compact. The State, through the Oklahoma Tax Commission, admits that the Osage Nation exercised this “option” and chose to incorporate the favorable terms of the State’s compacts with the Cherokee Nation and Choctaw Nation, inter alia. The Oklahoma Tax Commission recognizes that this action constituted an amendment to the Compact, including the “exception rate” of $.58 per carton. Nothing in the Compact ties or burdens such amendment of the Compact to the continuation of any comparable terms that may have been previously incorporated from another compact, like the Pawnee Compact in question.

¶3 In my opinion, there is no uncertainty about the meaning of any term in the Compact, nor any doubt about the performance due under any term. There is simply unjustified refusal of the Oklahoma Tax Commission to perform its ministerial duties under the Compact and a suit in district court for injunctive relief is one of the appropriate remedies for such a breach of contract. Under the record presented, I do not believe the trial court either exceeded its jurisdiction or abused its discretion in issuing the injunction.

Oklahoma Supreme Court Allows Tort Claims against Cherokee Nation in State Court under Gaming Compact

Matthew L.M. Fletcher2 Comments

Here is the opinion in Cossey v. Cherokee Nation Enterprises from the Oklahoma Supreme Court, with several concurrences and dissents. And here are the briefs:

cherokee-nation-enters-brief-in-chief

tribal-amicus-brief

cossey-brief

cherokee-reply-brief

Split in State Court Authority on Whether Casino Dram Shop Actions are Barred by Tribal Sovereign Immunity

Matthew L.M. Fletcher4 Comments

As Trent noted, the Oklahoma Supreme Court held 7-2 that dram shop actions filed against tribal casino operations are not barred by tribal sovereign immunity in Bittle v. Bahe. This decision conflicts with decisions of other state courts, including those of Arizona (Filer v. Tohono O’odham Nation), Texas (Holguin v. Ysleta del Sur Pueblo), and Washington (Foxworthy v. Puyallup). And, as we know by reading Rule 10 of the United States Supreme Court rules, the Supreme Court is predisposed toward hearing cases in which there is a split of lower court authority involving an important federal question.

This may be a troubling development, though perhaps not as a result of this case. If the tribe refuses to petition the Supreme Court for certiorari, then this case will be over. Moreover, even if the tribe petitions, the Court might let this one go because of lower court outcome isn’t troublesome to the Court.

Continue reading →