Here are the materials in Tribal Council of the Cheyenne and Arapaho Tribes of Oklahoma v. Foster (W.D. Okla.):
9 Notice of Voluntary Dismissal
13-5 Wilkinson v Hamilton Tribal Court Opinion
13-30 Hamilton v Election Commission Tribal Court Opinion
16 Notice of Voluntary Dismissal
Here are the materials in United Indian Health Services v. Su (E.D. Cal.):
Here are the materials in Native American Arts v. Peter Stone Co. (N.D. Ill.):
An excerpt:
In that briefing, the defendant’s primary position was that the plaintiff was collaterally estopped from establishing standing. Its secondary position was that plaintiff did not qualify as an Indian arts and crafts organization under the Indian Arts and Crafts Act (“IACA”), 25 U.S.C. § 305 IACA. Both arguments were rejected as non-starters. Native Am. Arts, Inc., 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 74187, 2015 WL 3561439, at *5-7. An intemperate opponent might have called them frivolous, but the mere fact that a position is a loser does not make it frivolous.
Another:
As for this time, however, it’s worth noting that the defendant was unable to mount a challenge to plaintiff’s standing until six years into this litigation; that tends to further undermine defendant’s position that this was an obvious flaw in the plaintiff’s suit and one that plaintiff should have readily conceded and should have dropped its suit early on. Indeed, if it were such a frivolous suit it would seem that defendant could have put together a successful motion for summary judgment based on the standing issue some time ago, thereby avoiding many of the costs and expenses of which it now complains.
Here are the materials in Cheyenne & Araphoe Tribes v. Harjo (W.D. Okla.):
35 Tribes Motion for Partial Summary J
36-4 C&A SCT Order re IBIA Decision
Here are the materials in Rose v. Utah State Bar (D. Utah):
Here are some of the materials in Ute Indian Nation v. Ute Distribution Corp. (D. Utah):
DCT Order Granting Summary J to Ute Distrib. Corp. (March 12, 2010)
We’ve posted several recent papers. Here is the website for all of our papers dating back to 2006.
Here is the opinion in Smith v. Oneida Employment Services (smith-v-oneida-dct-order), out of the Northern District of New York. Indianz and others have reported on this case, which was an employment claim dismissed on grounds of sovereign immunity. Here is the footnote regarding Rule 11 (and for more discussion on Rule 11 see my paper here):
Although the Court could sanction Plaintiff’s counsel for violating Rule 11 based on several of the factual allegations and legal arguments that he has submitted to the Court in this litigation, it will not do so at this time. However, the Court advises Plaintiff’s counsel that the Court will not tolerate such conduct in the future and will not hesitate to impose sanctions on him for any future violations.
Colorado Law is hosting a CLE on Indian law in conjunction with the NNALSA Moot Court competition.
Here is the agenda.
I’ll be presenting on the ethics of pushing the envelope in Indian law cases (paper here).
In the long-running MacArthur v. San Juan County case, the plaintiffs have filed a motion to reconsider in the district court. That’s not the candidate for a Rule 11 sanction. The response to that motion is. It’s captioned “San Juan County Defendants’ Memorandum Opposing Plaintiffs’ Latest But Not Last Motion to Reconsider.” (emphasis added). But that’s not all. The argument portion of the “brief” includes nothing but a quotation from the King James’ Version of the Bible. Huh?!?!
macarthur-v-san-juan-county-defendants-brief
It reminds me of something a very angry person would email in the middle of the night before they’ve had a chance to collect their thoughts and rethink their position with a calmer mind.
Turtle Talk 