Knighton v. Cedarville Rancheria Cert Petition

Here:

cert-petition.pdf

Questions presented:

“[T]he inherent sovereign powers of an Indian tribe do not extend to the activities of nonmembers of the tribe.” Montana v. United States, 450 U.S. 544, 565 (1981). The Montana Court recognized two limited narrow exceptions to that rule. But the Court has never resolved the question of whether tribal courts may ever exercise civil tort jurisdiction over nonmembers. In Plains Commerce Bank v. Long Family Land & Cattle Co., 554 U.S. 316 (2008) and in Dollar General Corporation and Dolgencorp, LLC v. The Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians, et. al. 136 S.Ct. 2159 (2016) the issue was brought before this Court, but unanswered. This case presents the issue of: Whether Indian tribal courts have jurisdiction to adjudicate civil tort claims against nonmembers?

Further this case presents the issue of: If the Indian tribal courts have jurisdiction to adjudicate civil tort claims over nonmembers, what is the prerequisite notice of any such authority, what is the prerequisite consent thereto by a nonmember, and what is the viable scope of such jurisdiction so as to satisfy the Due Process rights of a nonmember?

Lower court materials here.

UPDATE:

Brief in Opposition–PDFA

Federal Court Excuses Insurance Company from Tribal Court Jurisdiction

Here are the materials in Employers Mutual Casualty Company v. Branch (D. Ariz.):

1 Complaint

1-2 Coconino County Court Materials

15 EMCC MSJ

22 Navajo MSJ

25 EMCC Reply

28 Navajo Reply

32 DCT Order

Federal Court Rejects Ute Tribe Effort to Disqualify Judge [Ute v. McKee]

Here are the materials so far in Ute Indian Tribe v. McKee (D. Utah):

2 complaint

29 motion to disqualify judge

31 opposition

32 reply

38 dct order denying motion

Update (5/6/19):

39-tribe-motion-for-default.pdf

40-mckee-opposition-to-39.pdf

43-motion-to-intervene.pdf

44-reply-in-support-of-39.pdf

45-tribe-opposition-to-43.pdf

46-mckee-opposition-to-43.pdf

52-dct-order-denying-motion-for-default.pdf

53-dct-order-denying-motion-to-intervene.pdf

Ninth Circuit Briefs in FMC Corp. v. Shoshone-Bannock Tribes

Here:

FMC Opening Brief

Tribal Appellee Brief

FMC Reply

Tribe Reply

Prior posts here.

Federal Court Accepts Cherokee Nation’s Voluntary Dismissal of Tribal Court Opioid Case

Here are the materials in McKesson Corp. v. Hembree (N.D. Okla.):

139 Hembree Motion to Dismiss

141 Opposition

145 Reply

146 DCT Order

Prior post here.

Eighth Circuit Briefs in Kodiak Oil & Gas (USA) Inc. v. Seaworth [formerly Burr]

Here:

MHA Nation Judicial Officers Brief

HRC Brief

Lower court materials here.

New Scholarship on Tribal Jurisdiction to Protect Native Women and Children

Sarah Deer & Mary Kathryn Nagle have published Return to Worcester:
 Dollar General and the Restoration of Tribal Jurisdiction to Protect Native Women and Children in the Harvard Journal of Law and Gender.

An excerpt:

The Supreme Court’s recent 4-4 tie-vote in Dollar General Corp. v. Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians signals a distinctive shift away from the incoherent modern framework created by Oliphant v. Suquamish Indian Tribe—a framework that stripped Tribal Nations of their inherent authority to protect Native women from non-Indian perpetrated violence. With four Justices voting for—and not against—tribal jurisdiction, Dollar General signals a return to the Court’s 1832 decision in Worcester v. Georgia, wherein the Court affirmed the exclusive authority of Tribal Nations to exercise criminal jurisdiction over non-Indians who willingly enter tribal lands. For Native women—and the Tribal Nations that seek to protect them—the Court’s 2016 result in Dollar General signals a significant victory.

Federal Court Rejects Tribal Jurisdiction, Orders Arbitration, in Oilfield Equipment Contract Dispute

Here are the materials in Halcon Operating Co. Inc. v. Rez Rock N Water LLC (D.N.D.):

5 Motion for PI

19 Motion to Dismiss

22 Response to 19

23 Reply in Support of 19

29 DCT Order

Federal Judge Refuses to Sanction Attorney for Repeatedly Disparaging Tribal Court

Here are the relevant materials in Becker v. Ute Indian Tribe of the Uintah and Ouray Reservation (D. Utah):

134 becker motion for sanctions

146 tribal parties motion for sanctions

154 dct order denying becker motion for sanctions

155 dct order denying tribal parties motion for sanctions

Other Becker related posts here. Posts in Ute Indian Tribe v. Lawrence here.

Federal Court Holds Utah State Court Has Jurisdiction over Contract Dispute with Former Ute Tribe Contractor

Here are the materials in Ute Indian Tribe v. Lawrence (D. Utah):

52 motion for partial sj

53 motion for partial sj

54 emergency motion

95 becker opposition to emergency motion

101 reply

136 dct order

Tenth Circuit materials here.