Here are the briefs in Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Reservation v. State of Washington:
Reply Brief to come
Lower court materials here and here. Tribal court materials here.
tribal court
Omaha Tribe RFP for Appellate Court Services
THE OMAHA TRIBE OF NEBRASKA & IOWA is seeking Requests for Proposals (RFP) for professional legal consultation to support the establishment of a local Appellate Court. Applicants shall be licensed to practice law in any State or Federal jurisdiction and shall be familiar with appellate process. The Applicant shall be responsible for drafting appellate process, accompanying procedures for Clerk of Court, assist in searching and interviewing potential appellate panel and providing educational presentations for community and governmental agencies. RFP’s can be directed to the Omaha Tribal Human Resources Department at P.O. Box 368, Macy, Nebraska 68039, (402) 837-5391, or emailed to the Omaha Tribal Human Resources Director Carlton LeCount at clecount@omahatribe.com .
Materials in Federal DV Prosecution under Major Crimes Act (Colville)
Here are the materials so far in United States v. Flett (E.D. Wash.):
An excerpt:
On June 5, 2012, Tommie Joe Flett allegedly assaulted his estranged girlfriend at a residence that is located within the boundaries of the Colville Indian Reservation. The Colville Confederated Tribes charged Mr. Flett in tribal court with violations of tribal law. On August 24, 2012, Mr. Flett pleaded guilty in tribal court to the crime of “Battery (Domestic Violence).” During the process, he allegedly admitted assaulting his estranged girlfriend on June 5, 2012. The tribal judge sentenced Mr. Flett to a term of 360 days incarceration with credit for time served. The matter did not end there. The United States sought, and obtained, an indictment charging Mr. Flett with violations [2] of federal law. The federal indictment is based upon the same conduct that the 2012 tribal conviction is based upon. Counts one, two, and three allege Mr. Flett committed the crime of assault in Indian Country.18 U.S.C. §§ 1153(a)and113(a). Count four alleges he is subject to enhanced punishment based upon prior domestic violence convictions.18 U.S.C. § 117(a). The parties have filed a number of pretrial motions.
Ninth Circuit Decides Competency Question in Criminal Case Involving Tohono O’odham Nation Juvenile
Here is the opinion in United States v. LKAV.
From the court’s syllabus:
Reversing an order committing a juvenile for a study of his competency to stand trial, the panel held that the district court erred by committing the juvenile under 18 U.S.C. § 4241(d), rather than proceeding pursuant to Federal Juvenile Delinquency Act.
Materials in Denial of Yakama Motion to Dismiss Washington v. Yakama Tribal Court
Omaha Tribal Court Opinion Holding Tribe Has Authority to Tax Liquor Retailers on 1854 Reservation
Here is the opinion:
Village of Pender v Morris — Omaha Tribal Court
The District of Nebraska previously ordered exhaustion of tribal remedies in this matter, materials here.
And here is the briefing schedule:
News coverage here.
Federal Court Denies Yakama Motion for Injunction in State-Tribal Fuel Tax Dispute
Here are the updated materials in State of Washington v. Tribal Court for the Yakama Indian Nation (E.D. Wash.):
Washington Opposition to Yakama Motion
DCT Order Denying Yakama Motion for PI
The materials from the tribal court portion of this case are here. And the earlier federal court materials on tribal court jurisdiction are here.
Federal Court to Hear ICRA Habeas Claim in Child Custody Case at Absentee Shawnee
Here are the materials in Rosser v. Rosser (W.D. Okla.):
Jennifer Rosser Opposition to John Rosser Motion
Tribal Judge Motion to Dismiss
Jennifer Rosser Opposition to Judge Motion
Complicated, ugly case, like so many family law cases. An excerpt:
As noted above, Plaintiff seeks two forms of relief. First, a writ of habeas corpus ordering the return of her daughter, K.T., and, second, a declaratory judgment determining the jurisdiction of the tribal court. 25 U.S.C. § 1303 provides that a writ of habeas corpus shall “be available to any person, in a court of the United States, to test the legality of his detention by order of an Indian tribe.” Although as a general matter courts will not use this statute to intervene in child custody determinations, the facts as alleged in this case warrant a departure from the usual practice. According to the allegations in Plaintiff’s Complaint, the tribal court has ordered custody of K.T. be awarded to a person who has no legal status to her. Thus, this case is distinguishable from the typical child custody dispute where the losing party is simply seeking a different court’s take on a custody determination between two parties. Because Plaintiff has set forth allegations which state a plausible claim for relief under § 1303, Defendant Rosser’s Motion to Dismiss pursuant to 12(b)(6) will be denied.
Fifth Circuit Briefs in Miss. Band Choctaw Tribal Court Jurisdiction Matter
Here are the briefs so far in Dolgencorp. Inc. v. Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians:
UPDATE (3/4/13): Dolgencorp Reply Brief
Lower court decision and materials here.
Federal Court Order Memorializing Grant of Injunction against Yakama Tribal Court in Washington-Yakama Tax Dispute
Here is the order:
DCT Order Granting Washington’s Motion for PI
Briefs and materials here (federal) and here (tribal).
Turtle Talk 
You must be logged in to post a comment.