Oklahoma Supreme Court

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 →

Okla Supreme Ct Holds that 18 USC 1161 Waives Tribal Immunity from Suit

trentcrable2 Comments

The question is whether Congress abrogated tribal immunity from suits for “dram shop” liability when it enacted 18 USC 1161. Plaintiffs in several states have argued that it did, relying on the statute and the Supreme Court’s opinion in Rice v. Rehner. Until yesterday, no appellate court had agreed with that argument. The appeals courts of Arizona, Texas, and Washington have all found that 1161 does not amount to Congressional abrogation of tribal immunity, and that a tribe does not waive its immunity by getting a state issued liquor license. The plaintiff in the Washington case has petitioned the State Supreme Court for review–that petition is still pending.

I think the argument fails regardless of what the state’s laws say, but what makes this even more disturbing is that Oklahoma’s “dram shop” laws don’t even provide for a 3rd party suit as a method of regulation. In some states the liquor laws specifically provide for 3rd party suits as a means of enforcement, others, including Oklahoma, do not. What the Oklahoma court found was that 1161 abrogated tribal immunity from private tort suits based on a negligence theory simply because a violation of a liquor regulation was alleged.

Continue reading →