Here is the opinion in Jamul Action Committee v. Simermeyer.
Briefs here.
Here is the opinion in Jamul Action Committee v. Simermeyer.
Briefs here.
Here are updated materials in Klamath Irrigation District v. Bureau of Reclamation (D. Or.):
Dkt 89 Magistrate Findings and Recommendation of Dismissal
ECF 70 Second Amended Complaint
ECF 73 Shasta 2nd amended complaint
ECF 75 Klamath Motion to Dismiss
ECF 76 Feds Response to Motion to DIsmiss
ECF 83 Hoopa Reply Re Dismissal
ECF No 77 ShastaViewOppMotDismiss
Here is a new pleading in a related case, Yurok Tribe v. Bureau of Reclamation (N.D. Cal.):
Additional materials (9/8/22):
Here are the materials in Western Refining Southwest Inc. v. Dept. of the Interior (D.N.M.):
16 Intervenors Rule 19 Motion to Dismiss
Here:
Question presented:
Whether Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 19 requires dismissal of an Administrative Procedure Act action challenging a federal agency’s compliance with statutory requirements governing federal agency decisions, for failure to join a non-federal entity that would benefit from the challenged agency action and cannot be joined without consent.
Lower court materials here.
UPDATE:
Here is the unpublished opinion in Yurok Tribe v. Resighini Rancheria.
Briefs here.
Here is the unpublished opinion in Rosales v. Dutschke.
Briefs here.
Here are the materials in Sprawldef v. City of Richmond (N.D. Cal.):
Here:
Questions presented:
1. Does an Indian Tribe have authority under the second exception of Montana v. United States, 450 U.S. 544 (1981), to forfeit automobiles owned by non Native Americans for violation of tribal drug laws while on tribal land?
2. If so, does the Tribe have authority to seize a motor vehicle off reservation if it has probable cause to believe that the automobile previously contained illegal drugs while on tribal lands?
Lower court materials here.
You must be logged in to post a comment.