tribal court

Abby Abinanti squints at her docket. “The court is going to call — the court is going to put on its glasses,” she says dryly, reaching to grab her readers and snatch some candy from a staff member.

As chief judge of the Yurok Tribal Court, Abinanti wears no robe. On this day, she’s in jeans and cowboy boots, her silver hair spilling down the back of a black down vest. In contrast to her longtime role as a San Francisco Superior Court commissioner, she doesn’t perch above those who come before her; she shares a table with them.

http://www.latimes.com/local/la-me-yurok-tribal-judge-20140305-dto,0,320867.htmlstory#ixzz2v8BFclZJ

Federal Court Holds Omaha Reservation Not Diminished in Tribal Liquor Jurisdiction Matter

February 17, 2014Matthew L.M. Fletcher4 Comments

Here are the new materials in Smith v. Parker (D. Neb.):

134 Nebraska Response

135 US Response

136 Village of Pender Response

138 Omaha Tribe Response

140 Opinion

Cross-motions for summary judgment and briefs are here. Prior posts here, here, and here.

Tulalip Tribes Associate Judge Position

February 7, 2014Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here:

2014 Associate Judge Tulalip Job Announcement

Federal Court Refuses to Intervene in Divorce Proceedings in Shakopee Tribal Court

December 17, 2013December 16, 2013Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here are the materials in Lightfoot v. Jewell (D. Minn.):

13 Thomas Motion to Dismiss

18 Shakopee Motion to Dismiss

23 Lightfoot Motion for TRO

33 Thomas Opposition to TRO

35 Interior Opposition to TRO

37 Tribal Opposition to TRO

44 DCT Order Denying TRO

Fifth Circuit En Banc Petition Materials in Dolgencorp v. Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians

December 16, 2013Matthew L.M. Fletcher5 Comments

Here:

DOLGENCORP En Banc Petition

Tribal Response

CA5 panel materials are here.

Attorney Sanctioned by State for Behavior in Tribal Court

December 4, 2013Kate Fort

Minnesota Supreme Court decision here.

The Director argues that Michael’s e-mail questioning the tribal court’s impartiality violated Rule 8.4(d). Michael counters that her accusation regarding the tribal court’s impartiality was well founded and, therefore, was not a violation of Rule 8.4(d). Similar to the misconduct in Getty, the conclusion that Michael’s conduct constitutes a violation of Rule 8.4(d) rests on the manner in which she raised her concerns about the tribal court’s alleged unfairness. Even if Michael could establish that her concerns were well founded, Michael’s flippant rhetorical question at the end of the e-mail that she addressed to the presiding tribal court judge and sent to opposing counsel was unprofessional and disrespectful. Michael’s conduct demonstrates a failure to “show . . . restraint and . . . respect for the judicial system even while disagreeing strongly with it or its decisions.” In re Getty, 401 N.W.2d at 671; cf. In re Snyder, 472 U.S. 634, 645-47 (1985)

Chukchansi Factions Enjoined from Interfering with Sheriff Anderson

October 28, 2013October 29, 2013Matthew L.M. Fletcher3 Comments

Here are the materials in Anderson v. Duran (N.D. Cal.):

Complaint

Sheriff Anderson Motion

DCT Order Granting TRO

Split Fifth Circuit Panel Affirms Tribal Civil Jurisdiction over Nonmember in Dolgencorp v. Miss. Choctaw

October 4, 2013Matthew L.M. Fletcher6 Comments

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.