Here are the materials in Girmai v. Rincon Band of Luiseno Indians (S.D. Cal.):
tribal court exhaustion doctrine
Update in Columbe v. Rosebud Sioux Tribal Court (Suit re Tribal Court Jurisdiction over Nonmember)
Here are the materials in the denial of Columbe’s motions for reconsideration and to hold a trial for a permanent injunction (prior post here, with opinion dismissing plaintiff’s claims):
Columbe Motion for Reconsideration
RST Opposition to Motion for Reconsideration
Columbe Motion for Permanent Injunction
RST Opposition to Motion for Permanent Injunction
DCT Order Denying Motion for Reconsideration
Earliest post here.
Update in Dollar General v. Mississippi Choctaw: Tribal Jurisdiction Upheld
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.
EXC v. Jensen — Nonmember Challenge to Navajo Court Jurisdiction in Tort Case
Here are the materials in EXC, Inc. v. Jensen (D. Ariz.). This is a federal appeal to a Navajo Nation Supreme Court decision affirming jurisdiction over the nonmember company (we posted those materials here).
DCT Order in EXC (denying motion to dismiss)
Navajo Court Defendants Concurrence in Motion to Dismiss
Government Reply Brief in United States v. Ray Motion for Reconsideration
Here:
Well, the government tempered its complaint about having to go to the federal court by citing the government’s trust duties under United States v. Jicarilla Apache Nation. Seems to be an enormous amount of confusion. Jicarilla is a backdoor repudiation of the trust relationship, not the strong directive to protect tribal property. Whatever.
Earlier materials are here.
Update in Columbe v. Rosebud Sioux Tribe
The court has dismissed the plaintiff’s claims that were not appealed to the tribal appellate court for failure to exhaust tribal remedies. Other claims remain extant due to a waiver of immunity.
Here are the materials:
DCT Granting Motion to Dismiss in Part
RST 2d Supplemental Memorandum
Prior materials are here.
Parties Ordered to Produce Contract Provision that Will Determine Whether Rosebud Sioux Tribe Waived Immunity in Federal Court
Here are the materials in Colombe v. Rosebud Sioux Tribe (D. S.D.), a convoluted case originating in tribal court on whether the tribal court can pierce the corporate veil of a former gaming management partner of the Tribe:
Grand Canyon Skywalk Developer Motion for Reconsideration Denied; Case to Proceed in Tribal Court
Student Note on Meyer & Assoc. v. Coushatta Tribe
The Louisiana Law Review has published “Denying Sovereignty: The Louisiana Supreme Court’s Rejection of the Tribal Exhaustion Doctrine” by Carey Austin Holliday.
We posted this opinion a few years back.
Here is the abstract:
In its recent decision in Meyer & Associates, Inc. v. Coushatta Tribe of Louisiana, the Louisiana Supreme Court declined to require the application of the Tribal Exhaustion Doctrine (the “Doctrine”) in Louisiana state district courts. The Doctrine is a federal jurisprudential rule that applies when a tribal court has a claim of jurisdiction over a dispute. It requires federal courts to abstain from hearing the case until the tribal court has determined whether it can properly retain jurisdiction over the matter. The effect of this ruling by the Louisiana Supreme Court is that tribal courts will be denied the ability, in many instances, to determine questions related to tribal sovereign immunity. The United States Supreme Court has not yet had the occasion to determine whether the Doctrine is required of state courts, and several states have reached different conclusions as to whether their courts will be required to apply the Doctrine. Upon further examination of federal common law, as well as strong prudential considerations in favor of the Doctrine’s application, it becomes apparent that the Louisiana Supreme Court erred in declining to apply the Doctrine to Louisiana state district courts.
Federal Court Dismisses Effort to Block Rincon Eviction of Non-Indian (Alleged) Trespassers
Here are the materials in Rogers-Dial v. Rincon Band of Luiseno Indians (S.D. Cal.):
DCT Order Dismissing Rogers-Dial Complaint
Rogers-Dial Motion for PI — Part 1
Rogers-Dial Motion for PI — Part 2
Rogers-Dial Motion for PI — Part 3
We posted the complaint here.
You must be logged in to post a comment.