Ninth Circuit Briefs in Grondal v. United States [21-35507]

Here:

Wapato Heritage Opening Brief

Federal Answer Brief

Colville Answer Brief

Wapato Reply

Related decision [20-35694] from the CA9 here.

Ninth Circuit Decides Grondal v. United States [20-35694]

Here.

An excerpt:

The panel affirmed the district court’s grant of the Bureau of Indian Affairs’ motion for summary judgment and ejectment order in an action brought by a group of recreational vehicle owners seeking to retain their rights to remain on a lakeside RV park located on American Indian land held in trust by the Bureau.

Briefs here.

New Mexico COA Issues Tribal Immunity Opinion

Here is the opinion in Sipp v. Buffalo Thunder Inc.:

California COA Affirms Dismissal of State Court Employment Suit against Umatilla

Here is the unpublished opinion in Lopez v. Quaempts:

Opinion

Found just one brief:

Opening Brief

Materials in Tribal Business Partner’s Fraud/RICO Suit against MHA Nation

Here are the materials so far in Bird Industries Inc. v. Three Affiliated Tribes of the Fort Berthold Indian Reservation (D.S.D.):

1 Complaint

10 Amended Complaint

17 Motion to Dismiss

18-8 Arbitration Demand

18-9 AAA Arbitration Dismissal Order

25 Response

26 Reply

29 Surreply

Tanner v. Cayuga Nation Cert Petition

Here:

Petition

Questions presented:

1. In view of Sherrill, whether New York tribes exercise “concurrent” jurisdiction over fee lands within the plenary taxing and regulatory authority of the state and local governments, thereby enabling those tribes to engage in gaming under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA), and cause the same or greater disruptions of settled expectations condemned by this Court in Sherrill.

2. Whether fee lands under plenary state and local taxation and regulation (per Sherrill) constitute “Indian lands” under IGRA because those lands are located within the Cayugas’ historic reservation.

3. Whether the Cayuga Nation’s ancient reservation was disestablished. 

Lower court materials here.

California COA Decides Acres v. Marston

Here is the opinion:

Briefs:

Keep in mind as to this case and the related Ninth Circuit case we posted a while ago here, this is about a nonmember sued by a tribe in tribal court for breach of contract, a nonmember who won before the tribal court, and now is suing the tribal judges, tribal employees, and the lawyers for the tribe for racketeering because the nonmember believes there was a conspiracy against him. The only reason this case exists is because of the Lewis v. Clarke decision (preceded by Ninth Circuit cases) that holds individuals who work for tribes sued in their individual capacities are not immune. Even if the nonmember’s claim here has validity (seems very unlikely but who knows?), this case is definitive proof that the Lewis v. Clarke precedent will allow absolutely frivolous contract and other claims to proceed against tribes on the Lewis v. Clarke fiction that tribal employees sued in their individual capacity are somehow not engaged in tribal governmental activity and that the tribes that indemnify their employees are doing so for reasons unrelated to tribal governmental prerogatives. Here, we’re talking tribal judges (including an associate judge who was not assigned the case), a court clerk, and lawyers retained by the tribe to merely serve as counsel for the tribe, among others. They might all win below, as the court here suggests, but they have to make the correct arguments in what appears to be a game of whack-a-mole.

Fourth Circuit Affirms Hengle v. Treppa

Here.

Briefs here.

Ninth Circuit Decides Acres Bonusing, Inc. v. Marston

Here is the opinion:

Briefs here.

Federal Court Dismisses Fort Peck Tribe from Suit over Wildfire at Turtle Mound Buffalo Ranch 

Here are the materials in Treasure v. Bureau of Indian Affairs (D. Mont.):

1 Complaint

11 Fort Peck Tribe Motion to Dismiss

18 Response

19 Reply

35 DCT Order