Here are the materials in Forsythe v. Reno-Sparks Indian Colony (D. Nev.):
19 Wood Rodgers Inc Motion to Dismiss
Here are the materials in Forsythe v. Reno-Sparks Indian Colony (D. Nev.):
19 Wood Rodgers Inc Motion to Dismiss
Here are the materials in Quinault Indian Nation v. Pearson.
The court’s syllabus:
In an action brought by the Quinault Indian Nation alleging a scheme to defraud the Nation of cigarette taxes, the panel affirmed the district court’s dismissal of counterclaims as barred by the Nation’s sovereign immunity.
The panel held that if brought in a separate suit against the Nation, the counterclaims would be barred by sovereign immunity. Asserting the claims as counterclaims did not change the sovereign-immunity analysis. The panel concluded that the Nation did not waive its sovereign immunity because it filed the underlying suit but took no further action that unequivocally waived its immunity to the counterclaims, and the counterclaims did not qualify as claims for recoupment.
Here are the materials in Howard v. Plain Green (E.D. Va.):
Here are the materials in Stillaguamish Tribe of Indians v. State of Washington (W.D. Wash.):
Here is the opinion.
An excerpt:
“There are reasons to doubt the wisdom of perpetuating the doctrine” of tribal immunity. Kiowa Tribe of Oklahoma v. Mfg. Techs., Inc., 523 U.S. 751, 758 (1998). It “can harm those who are unaware that they are dealing with a tribe, who do not know of tribal immunity, or who have no choice in the matter, as in the case of tort victims.” Id. No one knows this more than Guy Lewis and Michael Tein. The Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of Florida, according to Lewis and Tein’s complaint, spent five years filing false lawsuits, suborning perjury, and obstructing justice, in an effort to damage the attorneys’ finances, reputations, and law firm. Whatever its wisdom, tribal immunity endures, and Indian tribes are not subject to the civil jurisdiction of our courts absent a clear, explicit, and unmistakable waiver of tribal sovereign immunity or a congressional abrogation of that immunity. Because neither exception to tribal immunity has been established in this case, we reverse the trial court’s denial of the Miccosukee Tribe’s motion to dismiss.
UPDATE (9/7/17):
Here are the materials in Osceola Blackwood Ivory Gaming Group LLC v. Picayune Rancheria of Chukchansi Indians (E.D. Cal.):
Here are the materials in Public Service Company of New Mexico v. Barboan:
Transwestern Pipeline Company Amicus Brief
Prior posts here.
Here are the materials in Ireson v. AVI Casino Enterprises (D. Nev.):
Here is the opinion in United States ex rel. Cain v. Salish Kootenai College.
Materials here.
Here are the materials in Wilson v. Umpqua Indian Development Corporation (D. Or.):
You must be logged in to post a comment.