Turtle Mountain COA to Hold Oral Argument at UND Law School

Here.

An excerpt:

The Turtle Mountain Tribal Court of Appeals will be at the University of North Dakota School of Law on Monday, November 18, 2013 to hear an oral argument in the matter of Ronald Allery et al v. Chairman of the Turtle Mountain Band. The argument begins at 9:00 a.m. in the Baker Courtroom on the third floor of the Law School building. The argument is free and open to the public.

The matter of Ronald Allery et al v. Chairman of the Turtle Mountain Band, to be heard on November 18, involves three tribal members terminated from employment by the Tribe who were reinstated by the Trial Court for the alleged failure of the supervisor to notify them of their right to grieve the terminations. The employees have also filed a cross-appeal claiming that the Tribe has refused to reinstate them and they have asked for back pay.

The issues involved include:

1. Whether the supervisor’s failure to notify the employees of their grievance rights justifies automatic reinstatement to positions;
2. Whether the Tribe has the authority to disobey a Court order it disagrees with;
3. Whether the employees were terminated for cause.

Two New Tribal Court Opinions from Turtle Mountain and Mille Lacs

The first, Mille Lacs Band of Ojibwe Indians v. Williams, involves a facial challenge to the tribal exclusion ordinance:

williams appeal decision

The second, Davis v. Poitra, consolidated with Malaterre v. Belcourt School Dist. No. 7, involves tribal court jurisdiction over claims brought against the school district:

Davis v. Belcourt School District

Tribal Court Jurisdiction over Tribal Insurers under the Montana Exceptions

The District of North Dakota, in Amerind Risk Management v. Malaterre, refused to the grant the insurance company’s motion for summary judgment on the grounds that the Turtle Mountain Tribal Court did not have jurisdiction over it under Montana v. United States. The Turtle Mountain tribal council had waived the Turtle Mountain Housing Authority’s sovereign immunity to the extent of insurance coverage, in accordance with tribal court precedent. Plaintiffs who were injured and killed in a house fire sued the insurance company in tribal court, which then asserted the Montana defense.

Here are the materials:

amerind-risk-mgmt-v-malaterre-tmac-opinion

amerind-motion-for-summary-judgment

defendants-response-to-amerind-motion-for-summary-judgment

amerind-reply-brief

amerind-v-malaterre-dct-order