Federal Court Rejects Martha’s Vineyard Landowners Suit for Compensation after Failed Land Disputes with Tribe, State, Everyone Else

Here are the materials in DeCoulos v. Town of Aquinnah (D. Mass.):

15 town of aquinnah motion to dismiss

20 community association motion to dismiss

24 opposition

35 dct order

Mass. High Court Rejects Easements by Necessity that would Favor Wampanoag Tribe

Here are the materials in Kitras v. Town of Aquinnah:

Aquinnah Gay Head Amicus Brief

Kitras Brief

Kitras Reply Brief

Kitras Supplemental Brief

Martha’s Vineyard Land Bank Commn Brief

Mass SJC Opinion

Massachusetts Brief

Pill Amicus Brief

Real Estate Bar Assn Amicus Brief

Vineyard Conservation Society Brief

Wampanoag Tribe Amicus Brief

Excerpts from the opinion:

In this case, we are asked to determine whether easements by necessity were created as a result of an 1878 partition of Native American common land in the town of Gay Head (now known as Aquinnah).4 Gay Head is located on the western coast of Martha’s Vineyard, connected to the rest of the island by an isthmus. At the time of the 1878 partition, Gay Head was inhabited solely by members of the Wampanoag Tribe of Gay Head (Tribe).5 When two commissioners appointed by the probate court pursuant to statute partitioned the common land into hundreds of lots to be held in severalty6 by members of the Tribe, they did not include express easements providing rights of access, leaving the lots landlocked. The plaintiffs are owners of several lots created by this partition and are seeking, over one hundred years later, easements by necessity over the lots of the defendants. We conclude that the defendants presented sufficient evidence to rebut the presumption that the commissioners intended to include rights of access and, therefore, no easements by necessity exist.7

And:

The Land Court judge assumed that the plaintiffs satisfied the elements of a presumption of an intent to establish an easement by necessity but concluded that the defendants submitted sufficient evidence to rebut the presumed intent of the parties. The judge concluded that (1) tribal custom and usage of the land, (2) other rights granted, and (3) the condition of the land at the time of partition provided sufficient evidence to rebut the presumed intent. We agree.

Massachusetts High Court Puts State Gaming Ban Initiative on Ballot

Here is the opinion in Abdow v. Attorney General (Mass. Sup. Jud. Ct.).

We posted links to briefs here.

An excerpt:

The issue presented on appeal is whether an initiative petition meant to prohibit casino and slots gambling and abolish parimutuel wagering on simulcast greyhound races meets the requirements set forth in art. 48 of the Amendments to the Massachusetts Constitution and, therefore, may be considered by voters at the November Statewide election. The Attorney General concluded that it did not and, accordingly, declined to certify it for inclusion on the ballot. The plaintiffs, ten Massachusetts voters who submitted the proposed initiative for certification, filed a complaint challenging the Attorney General’s decision and sought an order requiring the Attorney General to certify the petition. We conclude that the Attorney General erred in declining to certify, and grant the requested relief so that the initiative may be decided by the voters at the November election.

State-Wide Gaming Ban Referendum at Issue in Massachusetts

The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts will soon decide whether a state-wide referendum to ban gaming can go forward.

Here are the briefs in Abdow v. Attorney General (Mass. Sup. Jud. Ct.):

Interveners-Appellants Sarno Brief Interveners-Appellants Sarno Brief Intervener-Appellants Rizzo Sub Brief Intervener-Appellants Rizzo Sub Brief
Interveners-Appellants Ducharme Brief Interveners-Appellants Ducharme Brief Appellants Abdow Brief Appellants Abdow Brief
Amicus Public Health Advocacy Brief Amicus Public Health Advocacy Brief Interveners-Appellants Ducharme Suppl Brief Interveners-Appellants Ducharme Suppl Brief
Plaintiffs-Appellants Abdow Reply Brief Plaintiffs-Appellants Abdow Reply Brief Interveners-Appellants Sarno Reply Brief Interveners-Appellants Sarno Reply Brief
Amicus Greater Springfield Brief Amicus Greater Springfield Brief Amicus MA Building Trades Brief Amicus MA Building Trades Brief
Appellees Attorney General Brief Appellees Attorney General Brief Amicus Revere Interveners Brief Amicus Revere Interveners Brief
Amicus MA Competitive Partnership Brief Amicus MA Competitive Partnership Brief Amicus Stop Predatory Gambling Brief Amicus Stop Predatory Gambling Brief
Amicus Affiliated Chambers Brief Amicus Affiliated Chambers Brief Amicus Council Of Carpenters Brief Amicus Council Of Carpenters Brief
Amicus Town Of Plainville Brief Amicus Town Of Plainville Brief Amicus Coalition Of Citizens Brief Amicus Coalition Of Citizens Brief

Federal Court Strikes USFWS Cape Wind Decision

Here is the opinion in Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility v. Beaudreu (D.D.C.):

371 DCT Order

The Wampanoag Tribe of Gay Head (Aquinnah) was part of this suit as well.

Judge Gorton Holds Massachusetts Gaming Act Passes Constitutional Scrutiny

Here are the materials in KG Urban v. Patrick (D. Mass.):

140 Mass Gaming Commission Motion for Summary J

143 KG Urban Motion for Summary J

151 KG Urban Opposition

152 Mass Gaming Commission Opposition

153 Mass Gaming Commission Reply

160 DCT Opinion

News coverage here.

Prior posts in this case are here, here, here, and here. First Circuit materials are here.

NIGC and Interior Opinions on Wampanoag Tribe of Gay Head (Aquinnah)

Here:

Aquinnah Land Opinion 10-25-13 copy

2013.08.23 – Aquinnah Settlement Act Interpretation (signed)-2 copy

KG Urban v. Patrick Update — Matter Not Moot

Here are updated materials in KG Urban v. Patrick (D. Mass.):

DCT Order Denying MTD

Motion to Dismiss

KG Urban Opposition

Reply

Amended complaint here.

Federal Court Denies Tribal Intervention Motions in KG Urban v. Patrick

Here is that order:

DCT Order Denying Intervention

The intervention motions are here.

KG Urban Reply Brief in First Circuit Appeal

Here:

KG Urban Reply Brief