…but still holds that a signed tribal waiver can be authorized by the presence of 5 of 7 tribal council members (instead of an affirmative vote in a regular meeting required by the tribal constitution).
Here is the order:
Storevisions Modified Opinion.
Here are the materials:
Here is the opinion in California Parking Services v. Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians.
Here are the available briefs:
Here is the opinion and selected materials from Furry v. Miccosukee Tribe (S.D. Fla.):
DCT Order Dismissing Furry Complaint
Miccosukee Motion to Dismiss Furry Complaint
Furry Response to Motion to Dismiss
Miccosukee Response to Motion for Discovery on Grounds for Sovereign Immunity
Here are the materials in Rogers-Dial v. Rincon Band of Luiseno Indians (S.D. Cal.):
DCT Order Dismissing Rogers-Dial Complaint
Rogers-Dial Motion for PI — Part 1
Rogers-Dial Motion for PI — Part 2
Rogers-Dial Motion for PI — Part 3
We posted the complaint here.
Here are the materials in this stage of a long saga — Hollywood Mobile Estates v. Cypress (S.D. Fla.):
DCT Order Granting Hollywood Mobile Estates Motion
Here is the petition in MTE Financial Services v. Alameda County Superior Court:
Here is the opinion in New Gaming Systems v. Sac and Fox Nation:
Here is the opinion in Mendoza v. Tamaya Enterprises, Inc. News article here.
Along with Oklahoma, New Mexico is one of the few states to allow state law dram shop actions against tribal businesses. And, along with Oklahoma, the reasoning behind the decision is tied to the state-specific jurisdictional scheme created in the tribal gaming compacts.
Here is the order and motion to reconsider:
Jackson Band Motion for Reconsideration
And the previous order declining to dismiss (and relevant briefs) are here.
Turtle Talk 
You must be logged in to post a comment.