Here:
Robinson v. Tucker — RICO Class Action against Miami Tribe/Santee Sioux Payday Lending Business Partners
Here:
Santee Sioux Tribe
Iowa Court of Appeals Decides ICWA Notice Case
Here is the opinion in In re L.B.-A.D.
An excerpt:
Under the circumstances presented, we find the State has proved by clear and convincing evidence grounds for termination under section 232.116(1)(h). Additionally, we find no error in the juvenile court’s determination that termination of the mother’s parental rights was in the best interests of the children. However, because we determine the court erred in failing to give proper notice to the tribes in which the children could be determined to be “Indian children,” we remand the matter to the juvenile court, which shall give notice of the termination proceedings to the appropriate Indian tribes. See R.E.K.F., 698 N.W.2d at 150. If the tribes fail to respond within the appropriate timeframe or reply and determine the children are not eligible for tribal membership, the juvenile court’s original order of termination will stand. If a tribe responds and intervenes, reversal of the termination and further proceedings consistent with the requirements of the Iowa ICWA will be necessary. We therefore affirm the juvenile court‟s termination ruling on this condition. We do not retain jurisdiction.
Ameriloan v. Superior Court — Tribal Sovereign Immunity & Instant Loan Companies
Here is the opinion from the California Court of Appeals in Ameriloan v. Superior Court — ameriloan-v-superior-court-opinion
This appears to be a case similar to one decided recently in the Colorado Court of Appeals, Colorado v. Cash Advance, the so-called “Rent-A-Tribe” case. There, as in this case, the state appellate court reversed a lower court decision not to quash a summons against these instant loan companies, or payday lenders. The legal theory was, and is, that the company is owned by an Indian tribe and therefore immune from suit in state court.
This case involves the Miami Tribe of Oklahoma and the Santee Sioux Tribe, the same tribes involved in the Colorado case.
Colorado ex rel. Suthers v. Cash Advance — Rent a Tribe Case
We have written about this case before — the question of whether Cash Advance and others who are part-owned by Indian tribes can avoid suit from the Colorado AG for unfair consumer practices (yecch).
The Colorado Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s decision not to quash the subpoena directed against the tribe-owned Cash Advance defendant in this opinion — cash-advance-colorado-coa-opinion
The appellate briefs are here, and an additional amicus brief is here — amicus-brief-supporting-cash-advance (strangely, the brief doesn’t actually say who the amicus is…).
Cash Advance Rent-A-Tribes?
The Denver City and County Court thought so. In a case where the Colorado AG asked a Colorado trial court to issue subpoenas to internet money lenders owned by the Miami Nation of Oklahoma and the Santee Sioux Tribe of Nebraska. The tribal enterprises appeared for the purpose of contesting jurisdiction, raising tribal sovereign immunity as a bar to the subpoenas. The trial court denied the order. The case is now pending before the Colorado Court of Appeals.
If the characterization of this case on page 13 of this prepared statement before the House Subcommittee on Domestic Policy of the Committee on Oversight and Domestic Reform is even half accurate (the whole “rent-a-tribe” thing), then this is an ugly case. It is an ugly case regardless.
The Colorado Court of Appeals briefs are here:
Turtle Talk 