Here:
Questions presented:
Whether Indian tribal courts have jurisdiction to adjudicate civil tort claims against nonmembers, including as a means of regulating the conduct of nonmembers who enter into consensual relationships with a tribe or its members?
Lower court materials here.
The court also voted 9-5 to deny the en banc petition: CA5 Order Denying Dolgencorp En Banc Petition
En banc petition materials here.
Panel materials here.
Lower court decision and materials here.
Here is the amended opinion:
The main amendment appears to be that the panel will no longer rely upon the Ninth Circuit’s holding in Water Wheel — and instead finds that the tribe retains jurisdiction over the underlying tort claim under the Montana 1 consensual relations exception.
The court also voted 9-5 to deny the en banc petition: CA5 Order Denying Dolgencorp En Banc Petition
En banc petition materials here.
Panel materials here.
Lower court decision and materials here.
Here is the opinion. An excerpt:
Dolgencorp, Inc. and Dollar General Corp. (collectively “Dolgencorp”) brought an action in the district court seeking to enjoin John Doe, a member of the Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians, and other defendants (collectively “the tribal defendants”) from adjudicating tort claims against Dolgencorp in the Choctaw tribal court. The district court denied Dolgencorp’s motion for summary judgment and granted summary judgment in favor of the tribal defendants, concluding that the tribal court may properly exercise jurisdiction over Doe’s claims. Because we agree that Dolgencorp’s consensual relationship with Doe gives rise to tribal court jurisdiction over Doe’s claims under Montana v. United States, 450 U.S. 544, 564-66 (1981), we AFFIRM the district court’s judgment.
Briefs are here.
Lower court decision and materials here.
Here are the briefs so far in Dolgencorp. Inc. v. Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians:
UPDATE (3/4/13): Dolgencorp Reply Brief
Lower court decision and materials here.
Here are the materials in Dolgen Corp. v. Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians (S.D. Miss.):
Dollar General Motion for Summary J
Materials from a 2008 TRO motion in the same case are here.
Here are the materials in Copeland v. Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians dba Silverstar Casino (S.D. Miss.):
DCT Order Dismissing Copeland Complaint
Here are the materials in this case, out of the Southern District of Mississippi, where a plaintiff brought a race discrimination suit against a tribally owned enterprise (Mississippi Band Choctaw).
The Southern District of Mississippi granted a TRO against the tribal court in a case brought by tribal members against the owner of a Dollar General on tribal trust land. How this case doesn’t meet the Montana 1 test is beyond me.
Here are the materials:
Turtle Talk 