Opening Brief in Bay Mills Appeal to the Sixth Circuit re: Vanderbilt Casino

Here:

BMIC Opening Brief in CA6 Appeal

Eighth Circuit Briefing in Alltel v. Oglala Sioux Tribe

Here:

OST Opening Brief

Alltel Brief

OST Reply

Lower court materials are here.

Update in Center for Biological Diversity v. Pizarchik (and Navajo Nation and BHP Navajo Coal)

The Navajo motion to intervene in this suit is here.

The updated materials:

CBD Response to Navajo Motion to Dismiss

US Response

BNCC Response

Navajo Reply

Parties Ordered to Produce Contract Provision that Will Determine Whether Rosebud Sioux Tribe Waived Immunity in Federal Court

Here are the materials in Colombe v. Rosebud Sioux Tribe (D. S.D.), a convoluted case originating in tribal court on whether the tribal court can pierce the corporate veil of a former gaming management partner of the Tribe:

RST v. BBC Entertainment Tribal Court Order

Rosebud Motion to Dismiss

Colombe Opposition

Rosebud Reply

DCT Order in Colombe

New Mexico Bankruptcy Court Holds Bankruptcy Code Waives Tribal Immunity

Here are some of the materials in In re Platinum Properties, Inc. (Bankr. N.M.):

Bkrcy CT Order re Platinum Oil

Jicarilla Motion for Summary J

Jicarilla Reply

Jicarilla Supp Brief

DOI Advisory Brief

Other materials are here.

Class Action against High Stakes Bingo Machine Manufacturers Dismissed under Rule 19

This dispute arises from the Poarch Band’s high stakes bingo operations. Poarch Band was not named.

The case is Hardy v. IGT (M.D. Ala.):

Bally Motion to Dismiss

Multimedia Games Motion to Dismiss

Rocket Games Motion to Dismiss

DCT Order Dismissing Hardy Class Action

Seneca Telephone v. Miami Tribe Cert Petition

Here (updated 8/24/11 with better pdf):

Seneca Telephone Cert Petition

Questions Presented:

1. Under federal preemption principles invoked in Rice v. Rehner, 463 U.S. 713 (1983), and specifically, the principles determinative on the applicability of the doctrine of tribal sovereign immunity in a regulatory context, did the Oklahoma Supreme Court err and issue a conflicting ruling with this Court’s decision in Rice when it failed to apply the preemption principles to the present cases?
2. Under the preemption principles invoked in Rice, as applied to the present cases, does the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. §§ 151et. seq.) delegate to the States the authority to exercise jurisdiction over tribal entities when Congress confers to the States the power to exercise jurisdiction over all intrastate communications?
Lower court materials are here.

ADA Claim against Navajo Healthcare Provider Dismissed

Here are the materials in Vulgamore v. Tuba City Regional Healthcare Corporation (D. Ariz.):

DCT Order Dismissing Vulgamore Complaint

Tuba City Motion to Dismiss

Vulgamore Response

Tuba City Reply

Federal Court Dismisses Effort to Reopen Black Hills Judgment Fund

Here is the opinion in Different Horse v. Salazar and Rosebud Sioux Tribe (D. S.D.):

Different Horse DCT Order.

And the briefs:

US Motion to Dismiss Different Horse Complaint

Different Horse Response

US Reply to Different Horse Response

FMLA Claim against Viejas Enterprises Dismissed

Here are the materials in Morrison v. Viejas Enterprises (S.D. Cal.):

DCT Order Dismissing Morrison Complaint

Viejas Motion to Dismiss

Morrison Response

Viejas Reply