Washington Court of Appeals – Page 6

This Court should reverse for legal errors the denial of the Nooksack Business Corporation’s motion to dismiss Outsource Services Management LLC’s complaint. The trial court erred when it denied the Nooksack Business Corporation’s motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, lack of personal jurisdiction and failure to state a claim. Reversal is required to preserve the sovereignty of the Tribe under Washington and federal law and this Court’s jurisprudence regarding jurisdiction, and to comply with the Indian Gaming Regulation Act.

Puyallup Tribal Police Officer Immunity Upheld

September 15, 2011September 14, 2011Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Here is the Washington Court of Appeals’ unpublished decision in Young v. Duenas.

Here is an excerpt:

Chris Young appeals the trial court’s CR 12(b)(1) dismissal of his claims for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. He argues that the defendant tribal police officers present at the time of his brother’s death are not protected by the Puyallup Tribe’s sovereign immunity and that the state should have subject matter jurisdiction over the case. Because the officers acted in their official capacity and within the scope of the tribe’s authority, the trial court properly dismissed based on sovereign immunity. We affirm.

Washington Appellate Court Remands ICWA Indian Status Case

May 2, 2011Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is the unpublished opinion in In re T.B.

From the opinion:

P.R. appeals Kitsap County orders establishing a dependency for her three children and placing them in the care of others. She argues that there was insufficient evidence to prove that she was incapable of adequately caring for the children. See RCW 13.34.030(6)(c). She also contends that the Department of Social and Health Services and the court failed to comply with the requirements of the Indian Child Welfare Act, 25 U.S.C. § 1912 (ICWA). We find adequate evidence to support the dependency but remand for a proper determination of the children’s Indian status.

State v. Yallup — Wash. Court of Appeals Decides PL 280 Criminal Jurisdiction Case

March 14, 2011Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is the opinion.

An excerpt:

Elon Yallup challenges his conviction for felony driving while under the influence (DUI), arguing that the State cannot enforce the implied consent laws against an enrolled member of the Yakama Nation driving on state highways on the reservation. We conclude that the implied consent statute is primarily a criminal statute rather than a civil regulatory statute as that distinction is applied by the United States Supreme Court in cases interpreting Public Law 280.

Appellant brief is here.

Respondent brief is here.

Washington Appellate Court Rejects Equal Protection Challenge to ICWA

January 28, 2011Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is the opinion in Beach v. Johnson.

An excerpt:

Moreover, ICWA does not deny Angel equal protection or substantive due process. A child has no fundamental constitutional right to a stable and permanent home. In re N.B., 199 P.3d 16, 23 (Colo. App. 2007); In re Baby Boy C., 805 N.Y.S.2d 313, 27 A.D.3d 34, 50-51 (2005); In re A.B., 2003 ND 98, 663 N.W.2d 625, 635-36. And “[t]he United States Supreme Court has consistently rejected claims that laws that treat Indians as a distinct class violate equal protection.” In re Angus, 60 Or. App. 546, 554, 655 P.2d 208 (1982). Indians are granted preferences under ICWA, not because of their race, but because of their membership in quasi-sovereign tribal entities. Id. at 555. ICWA does not violate due process. N.B., 199 P.3d at 23; Baby Boy C., 27 A.D.3d at 51; A.B., 663 N.W.2d at 636. Nor does it violate equal protection because ICWA is rationally related to Congress’s obligation to protect and advance the Indian family and tribal relations. Id.at 555-56.