Here.
We posted on this case here.
Here are the materials in Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Nation v. Okanogan County (Wash. Ct. App.):
An excerpt:
This appeal concerns one of endless broken promises by American government authorities toward Native Americans. The breach of an agreement in this instance also encompasses a violation of a court order.
The Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Nation (Yakama Nation) agreed to dismiss a lawsuit against Okanogan County, and, in return, the county agreed to adopt, by December 31, 2018, a new comprehensive plan and zoning ordinance that hopefully addressed the concerns the Nation had about the county’s current plan and ordinance. The superior court signed an order of dismissal without prejudice of the lawsuit, which order incorporated the many promises of the parties. When Okanogan County failed to adopt a new plan and ordinance by December 31, 2018 and thereby violated the court order, the Yakama Nation moved to vacate the order of dismissal. The superior court denied the motion to vacate on the alternative grounds that it lacked authority to vacate an order of dismissal without prejudice and that the Nation had no sustainable cause of action against the county for breaching its promises or violating the court order. Because the order of dismissal without prejudice imposed numerous obligations on Okanogan County, some of which it has disobeyed, we rule that the motion to vacate should have been granted. We thus reverse the superior court.
Here are the materials in Davis v. King County (Wash. Ct. App.):
79696-6-8-I Appellants’ Motion for Reconsideration
79696-6-8-I Appellees’ Response to Motion for Reconsideration
Prior post here.
Here are the materials in Lacy v. Snohomish County (Wash. Ct. App.):
4-15-19 Appellant’s Opening Brief
5-17-19 Respondent Cross Appellant’s Brief
6-14-19 Appellant’s Reply Brief
Prior post here.
Here are the materials in Davis v. King County (Wash. Ct. App.):
9-27-19 Amended Appellees’ Joint Response Brief
09-09-19 Appellees’ Joint Response Brief
An excerpt:
“Before addressing each of the estate’s arguments, we acknowledge that Davis’s death is tragic and echo the trial court’s sentiment that the application of RCW 4.24.420 here is problematic because it precludes claims where law enforcement officers’ actions and training may have been unreasonable, given their knowledge that the individual they were confronting was suicidal and armed. RCW 4.24.420 prevents courts and juries from reaching the issue of whether law enforcement’s negligence resulted in the loss of life. The statute is clear and precludes our evaluation of these policy questions.”
Here is the opinion in Samish Indian Nation v. Department of Licensing:
2020-08-31 Opinion of Court of Appeals
Briefs here.
Here is the opinion in Cowlitz Tribal Gaming Authority v. Clark County Sheriff’s Office:
Briefs here:
Here.
It took me a while to read this whole opinion and there are a lot of issues. But to start, I’d note that unlike some arguments in another unnamed federal ICWA case (Brackeen, it’s Brackeen), this case is yet another every day example where a state has to prove the best interests of the child standard and the ICWA standard–the ICWA standard didn’t supplant BIOC.
That said, there is some unnecessary Michigan trash talking in this case as the Court happily finds active efforts is more than reasonable efforts, but unhappily choses to adopt a “futility doctrine” for the active efforts finding. The futility “doctrine” for active efforts is a judicially created standard to excuse the state from providing active efforts to the parent.
Here are the materials:
79733-6 – Samish Indian Nation, Appellant v. Department of Licensing, Respondent
Update:
Amicus Curiae Stillaguamish Tribe of Indians
You must be logged in to post a comment.