Here are new materials in the case now captioned Nooksack Indian Tribe v. Zinke (W.D. Wash.):
14 – Motion of 271 Nooksack Tribal Members to Intervene
19 – Nooksack Tribe’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction
22 Nooksack Opposition to Intervention
24 271 Members Reply in Support of Motion to Intervene
26 – Federal Defendants’ Opposition to Preliminary Injunction Motion and Cross-Motion to Dismiss
Here are the materials in Comenout v. Pierce County Superior Court (W.D. Wash.):
46 Motion to File Third Amended Complaint and PI
64 DCT Order Denying Motion for Sanctions
63 DCT Order Denying Motion to File
Prior posts here.
Here are the materials in Dahlstrom v. Sauk-Suiattle Tribe (W.D. Wash.):
Here are the materials in Swinomish Indian Tribal Community v BNSF Railway Company (W.D. Wash.):
58-swinomish-motion-for-summary-j
An excerpt:
For all of the foregoing reasons, the cross-motions for summary judgment (Dkt. # 58 and Dkt. # 63) are GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. The Tribe is entitled to a declaration that BNSF breached the terms of the Easement Agreement by failing to make annual disclosures regarding the cargo it was carrying across the reservation and by increasing the number of trains and cars traversing the reservation without first seeking to obtain the Tribe’s written assent. The state law claims for damages, compelled disclosures, and an adjustment in rent are not preempted by the ICCTA. To the extent the Tribe seeks an injunction limiting the type of cargo or the number of trains or cars crossing the reservation — whether under a breach of contract, trespass, or estoppel theory — those remedies are unavailable in this jurisdiction. The Tribe may seek a declaration of its contractual rights from the STB and/or it may initiate the right of way cancellation procedures provided under in the IRWA and its implementing regulations.
Here are the materials in the case now captioned Tulalip Tribes v. State of Washington (W.D. Wash.):
72-washington-motion-for-summary-j
74-tulalip-motion-for-partial-summary-j-govt-services-outside-boundaries
115-tulalip-reply-in-support-of-74
117-washington-reply-in-support-of-72
Complaints etc. here.
Here are the materials in Stillaguamish Tribe of Indians v. State of Washington (W.D. Wash.):
Here are the materials in Comenout v. Pierce County Superior Court (W.D. Wash.):
Here are the materials in Franks Landing Indian Community v. National Indian Gaming Commission (W.D. Wash.):
Turtle Talk 
You must be logged in to post a comment.