Here is the opinion in AUTO v. State of Washington:
Briefs here.
Critical commentary, I might add. From the King County Bar Association Law Bulletin:
State v Shale – Supreme Court Moves Washington in the Wrong Tribal Direction
A somewhat random excerpt:
The Court’s opinion is primarily based on its wholly mistaken belief that when Public Law 280 was passed by Congress in the 1950s and enacted and amended by Washington in the 1960s, “neither this state nor the federal government would have understood that one tribe’s court could have jurisdiction over members of another tribe.” To reach that conclusion, the Court relied upon Duro v. Reina, 495 U.S. 676 (1990), where the U.S. Supreme Court held a tribe no longer possessed the authority to prosecute a “nonmember Indian.”
Here are the briefs in Automotive United Trades Organization v. State of Washington:
State Response to Policy Amicus
This case reached the Washington Supreme Court previously on a procedural issue, here.
Here is the opinion.
An excerpt:
Washington State courts have jurisdiction over civil cases arising on Indian reservations as long as it does not infringe on the sovereignty of the tribe. At issue in this case is whether Washington State courts have jurisdiction over a civil case arising out of a contract in which the tribal corporation waived its sovereign immunity and consented to jurisdiction in Washington State courts. We hold that it does not infringe on the sovereignty of the tribe to honor its own corporation’s decision to enter into a contract providing for jurisdiction in Washington State courts.
Briefs and other materials here.
Here are the materials in the petition stage of Outsource Services Management LLC v. Nooksack Business Corp.:
Nooksack Petition for Review + Appendix
Lower court materials here.
Here is the opinion in State v. Clark. State v Clark (PDF)
Briefs and other materials here.
Here are the briefs in State v. Clark:
Lower court materials here.
Page 24 of this PDF.
You must be logged in to post a comment.