Washington Appellate Court Rejects Tribal Immunity in Land Case

Here is the opinion in Smale v. NORTEP, a Washington Court of Appeals (Div. 1) case involving the Stillaguamish Tribe. Here is an excerpt:

The Smales sought to quiet title to property they claimed they had acquired through adverse possession and named Noretep, the original non-Indian owners, as defendants. After the Smales sued, Noretep deeded the disputed property to the Stillaguamish Tribe of Indians (the Tribe), and the Smales named the Tribe as a defendant. In its unsuccessful motion to dismiss, the Tribe claimed that tribal sovereign immunity deprived the superior court of subject matter jurisdiction. Because courts exercise in rem jurisdiction over the property subject to quiet title actions, our Supreme Court has held that transferring the disputed property to a tribal sovereign does not bar the continued exercise of subject matter jurisdiction over the property. Accordingly, we hold that the superior court’s continuing jurisdiction over the land claimed by the Smales for the purposes of determining ownership does not offend the Tribe’s sovereignty.

Nahno-Lopez v. Houser — Land Claim against Fort Sill Tribal Council

Here are the materials in this claim against the Fort Sill Apache Tribal Council in their individual capacities. The claims are by Kiowa and Comanche tribal members. The Western District of Oklahoma concluded that the claims may proceed against the tribal council in their individual capacities.

Nahno-Lopez DCT Order

Houser Motion to Dismiss

Houser Motion to Strike

Nahno-Lopez Response Brief

Houser Reply Brief

Houser Motion to Strike

Garland v. Choctaw Casino — Sovereign Immunity Case

Here are the materials in Garland v. Choctaw Casino (E.D. Okla.), dismissed on sovereign immunity grounds:

Choctaw Motion to Dismiss

Garland v Choctaw Casino DCT Order

Stroud v. Armenta — Employment Claim Dismissed in State Court on Sovereign Immunity Grounds

Here are the materials in Stroud v. Armenta (opinion here), an unpublished case decided by the California Court of Appeals involving the Santa Ynez Band of Chumash Indians:

Stroud Appellant Brief

Armenta Respondent Brief

Stroud Reply Brief

Suit re: Tribal Police Tort Claim Dismissed

The case is Wallulatum v. Warm Springs Confederated Tribes (D. Or.). Here are the materials:

Wallulatum DCT Order

Warm Springs Motion to Dismiss

Complaint of Former Chief Judge of the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe Dismissed

The case is Miner v. Standing Rock Sioux Tribe (D. N.D.). Here are the materials:

Miner Motion for Summary Judgment

[no response]

SRST Motion to Dismiss

Miner Response to Motion to Dismiss

SRST Reply Brief

Miner v Standing Rock DCT Opinion

SRST Administrative Order for Dismissal

SRST Supreme Court Order

SRST Tribal Court Order

North Carolina ex rel. Cooper v. Seneca-Cayuga Tobacco — Tribal Sovereign Immunity Case

The AG for the State of North Carolina cannot enforce portions of the Master Settlement Agreement against an Indian tribe, due to the tribe’s immunity. Here is the opinion from the North Carolina Court of Appeals, and the materials:

North Carolina Brief

Seneca-Cayuga Brief

API v. Sac & Fox — Cross-Motions Pending

The case is ATTORNEY’S PROCESS AND INVESTIGATION SERVICES, INC. v. SAC & FOX TRIBE OF THE MISSISSIPPI IN IOWA.

After having been reopened (see our post here), post-tribal remedies exhaustion, the tribe filed a motion to dismiss, and the plaintiffs filed a motion for summary judgment. Both are pending after the court’s order to allow amendment of some of the pleadings.

DCT Order on Motion to Amend

Sac & Fox Motion to Dismiss

API Resistance to Motion to Dismiss

Sac & Fox Reply

API Motion for Summary Judgment

Sac & Fox Resistance to Motion for Summary J

Supreme Court Denies Cert in Indian Law Cases Today

The Supreme Court denied cert in two petitions captioned Cook v. Avi Casino Enterprises (Nos. 08-929, 08-930). It’s on page 4 of this order list.

This is good news for Indian Country (and for my student writing a paper on this subject — you reading this, J.?). There is a split of authority on the question of whether tribal business enterprises are immune from suit in a state law dram shop action, as we have discussed before. But I’m guessing the Court thinks it’s either unimportant or too much a state law question, since each state has its own version of dram shop laws and applies its own understanding of tribal sovereign immunity. But who knows….

Sixth Circuit to Decide Tribal Enterprise Immunity Case — UPDATED!

The case is Memphis Biofuels v. Chickasaw Nation Industries, being appealed to the Sixth Circuit from the Western District of Tennessee. The case involves the assertion by CNI, a Section 17 corporation, that it is entitled to sovereign immunity, and that there is no federal subject matter jurisdiction over this contract claim against it. The lower court granted CNI’s motion to dismiss and Memphis Biofuels has appealed to the Sixth Circuit.

Here are the lower court materials:

memphis-biofuels-complaint-and-exhibits

cni-motion-to-dismiss-and-exhibits

memphis-biofuels-response-to-motion-to-dismiss

cni-reply-motion-to-dismiss

cni-supplemental-memorandum

memphis-biofuels-supplemental-memorandum

memphis-biofuels-dct-order

Sixth Circuit materials:

Continue reading