Here:
Findings of Fact Memo of Law and Memorandum Opinion (Lower ct decision)
Tenth Circuit
Stewart v. Coffey — Tribal Gaming Employment Claims Dismissed
Here is the unpublished opinion by the Tenth Circuit, rejecting wrongful discharge claims under federal statutes and under Bivens, and affirming tribal immunity.
Here is the tribal brief: Comanche Brief.
Tenth Circuit Upholds Uranium Mining Leases in Navajo Indian Country
Tenth Circuit Finds Osage Nation Reservation Diminished in Tax Case
Opinion here: Osage Nation v. Kemp, 09-5050 (March 5, 2010)
Briefs here.
Tenth Circuit Reverses Refund Judgment against HUD
The case is Fort Peck Housing Authority v. HUD, and it’s unpublished (again, not sure why cases like these go unpublished).
An excerpt:
This case involves the Native American Housing Assistance and Self- Determination Act of 1996 (NAHASDA), 25 U.S.C. §§ 4101-4243.1 In that act Congress directed the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) to enter into a collaborative process with interested Native American tribes and their designated housing entities (Tribal Housing Entities) to adopt regulations providing for an annual, equitable distribution of available funds for low-income housing assistance. A regulation promulgated in 1998 disqualified funding for housing units which were no longer owned or operated by a Tribal Housing Entity. 24 C.F.R. § 1000.318. In subsequent years HUD mistakenly overpaid Fort Peck Housing Authority (Fort Peck) for dwelling units it no longer owned or operated. After discovering its oversight HUD demanded a refund. Fort Peck partially repaid HUD, but then sued, alleging the “owned or operated” regulation was invalid. The district court agreed but determined Fort Peck was not entitled to a return of all monies it had already refunded. HUD appealed from the court’s invalidation of its regulation and Fort Peck cross-appealed from the denial of return of its repayments. We reverse the invalidation of HUD’s regulation, dismiss Fort Peck’s cross-appeal, and remand.
Tenth Circuit Briefing in Muscogee (Creek) Nation Tribal Court Jurisdiction Case
[Links have been restored, May 28, 2010.]
Crowe & Dunlevy, P.C. v. Stidham, Appellant
Lower court order is here.
Tenth Circuit Seeks to Conclude San Juan County Dispute
Here is the latest and perhaps last in Dickson v. San Juan County from the Tenth Circuit. Materials are here.
An excerpt:
Plaintiffs-Appellants Dickson, Riggs and Singer (hereafter “Appellants”) appeal from the district court’s order denying their motion for relief from this court’s final judgment. The district court ruled that the law-of-the-case doctrine prohibited it from considering Appellants’ new legal theories that a Navajo Nation tribal court had subject-matter jurisdiction over defendants, notwithstanding this court’s decision to the contrary. The court’s order also granted defendants’ motion to enjoin Appellants from initiating any further proceedings against them. We affirm.
Plaintiffs-Appellants Dickson, Riggs and Singer (hereafter “Appellants”)appeal from the district court’s order denying their motion for relief from thiscourt’s final judgment. The district court ruled that the law-of-the-case doctrineprohibited it from considering Appellants’ new legal theories that a NavajoNation tribal court had subject-matter jurisdiction over defendants,notwithstanding this court’s decision to the contrary. The court’s order alsogranted defendants’ motion to enjoin Appellants from initiating any furtherproceedings against them. We affirm.
Briefing in Wilgus Eagle Act/RFRA Appeal in Tenth Circuit
The Tenth Circuit briefing in United States v. Wilgus is complete:
Appellate Briefs in Osage Nation v. Kemp Tax/Reservation Disestablishment Case
Here:
Lower court materials are here.
Tenth Circuit Affirms Lower Court in Ute Partition and Termination Act Case
Here is the opinion in Ute Distribution Corp. v. Secretary of Interior. An excerpt:
Plaintiff Ute Distribution Corporation (UDC) appeals from a decision of the district court denying UDC’s claim for a declaration that the Secretary’s implementation of the 1954 Ute Partition and Termination Act, 25 U.S.C. §§ 677 et seq., did not provide for an equitable and practicable division and distribution of water rights between the “mixed-blood” and “full-blood” members of the Ute Indian Tribe, and that, consequently, such rights are currently held in trust by the Secretary for the mixed-blood members.FN1 Exercising jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, we conclude that UDC’s action was untimely filed. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s dismissal of UDC’s claim and remand only so that the district court may amend its judgment to reflect this as the basis for the judgment.
Here are the briefs:
Turtle Talk 
You must be logged in to post a comment.