Navajo Nation Sues and Seeks TRO Against State Court Jurisdiction Over Easement on Allotted Land

Here are the materials in the matter of Navajo Nation et al v. Rael et al, 16-cv-00888 (D. N.M. 2016):

Doc. 1 – Complaint for Injunctive and Declaratory Relief

Doc. 2 – Motion for Expedited Temporary Restraining Order

Judge Dismisses Navajo Nation Challenge to State Jurisdiction in Personal Injury Suits at Casinos

Here are the materials in the matter of Navajo Nation et al v. Marsh et al, 15-cv-00799 (D. N.M. 2016):

Doc. 12 – Motion for Summary Judgment

Doc. 13 – Response to Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment

Doc. 17 – McNeal Defendant’s Response in Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment

Doc. 19 – Reply in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment

Doc. 21 – Memorandum Opinion and Order

Link to previously posted complaint here.

Navajo Nation Sues to Stop State Court Jurisdiction over Personal Injury Lawsuits Arising at Navajo Casinos

Here is the complaint in Navajo Nation v. Marsh (D. N.M.):

1 Complaint

Edit: Amended Complaint

Federal Court Dismisses Gustafson v. Poitra Dispute (Again)

Here are the materials in Gustafson v. Poitra (D. N.D.):

19 Motion to Dismiss

23 Response

34 DCT Order

An excerpt:

The Court notes the equities clearly favor the Gustafsons, and the Court is sympathetic to the jurisdictional dilemma they find themselves in. The juvenile behavior and attitude of the Poitras that triggered the need for the issuance of the TRO in October 2012 is difficult for any reasonable person to understand. However, the plaintiffs cannot use the Declaratory Judgment Act as a vehicle to resolve a multitude of long-standing disputes which neither raise a federal question nor bear any relationship to a lawsuit over which the Court would have jurisdiction.

We have posted on the multiple suits in this long-running dispute here, here, and here.

North Dakota Supreme Court Decides On-Reservation Jurisdiction Case

Here is the opinion in Gustafson v. Poitra.

The court’s syllabus:

The appellate court may consider whether the district court had subject matter jurisdiction and may consider the issue sua sponte.

A state court does not have subject matter jurisdiction where a non-Indian claimant initiates an action against Indian defendants over a lease of fee land owned by the Indian defendants within the exterior boundaries of the reservation.

And links to the appellant and appellee briefs.

Kelly v. Kelly — North Dakota Supreme Court on State Court Jurisdiction over Indian/Non-Indian Marriage

Here is the opinion in Kelly v. Kelly. An excerpt:

Richard Kelly appealed from a district court judgment granting him a divorce from Karol Kelly but concluding that the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the incidents of the marriage. We reverse and remand, concluding the district court had concurrent subject matter jurisdiction with the tribal court to adjudicate the incidents of the parties’ marriage.

And the materials:

kelly-appellant-brief

kelly-appellee-brief

kelly-reply-brief

Oklahoma Supreme Court Allows Tort Claims against Cherokee Nation in State Court under Gaming Compact

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