Here are the materials in Oneida Tribe of Indians of Wisconsin v. Village of Hobart (W.D. Wis.):
DCT Order Granting Oneida Motion for Summary J
Hobart Opposition to Oneida Motion
Hobart Opposition to Federal Motion
Prior post on this case here.
The Tribe’s prior entanglements with their litigious neighbors are reported here and here and here and here and here.
Here. (pdf)
The state is asking the federal court enforce an arbitration award.
Here is the complaint in Saybrook Tax Exempt Investors LLC v. Lake of the Torches Economic Development Corp. (W.D. Wis.):
Saybrook Federal Court Complaint
The state court complaint is here.
Interesting case, in that the parties were diverse citizens, but the other party to the relevant contract (not a party to the case, however) was a tribe (Confederated Tribes of the Chehalis Reservation), so that defeated diversity jurisdiction.
An excerpt:
This civil action for monetary relief brought by plaintiff CTGW, LLC against defendants GSBS, PC, Colvin Engineering Associates, Inc. and Spectrum Engineers, Inc. arises out of a dispute regarding the design and construction of Great Wolf Lodge resort and water park in Grand Mound, Washington. Plaintiff alleges that this court has subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1), which applies to actions in which the plaintiff and the defendants are “citizens of different States” and the amount in controversy is more than $ 75,000. Plaintiff alleges that the parties are completely diverse and the matter in controversy exceeds $ 75,000. However, I conclude that because one of the members of plaintiff CTGW, LLC is an Indian tribe, diversity is destroyed. Therefore, I am dismissing this case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
Here is the opinion in Sturdevant v. Menominee Indian Tribe (W.D. Wis.): DCT Order Dismissing Sturdevant Complaint
In the last update here, we reported that the tribal defendants in the federal False Claims Act case, United States v. Menominee Tribal Enterprises (W.D. Wis.), had been dismissed out. Two individuals remained. They were acquitted in a jury trial — Jury Verdict Form.
They then filed for attorney fees under the Equal Justice Act. The motion was denied: DCT Order Denying Atty Fees.
Here is that opinion: DCT Order Denying Motion to Vacate
New materials here:
Michael Cox Expert Report (response to Kevin Washburn expert report)
Older materials here.
Here: Decision and Order
Some have asked, so we’re posting the 86 page trust indenture: Trust Indenture
Turtle Talk 
You must be logged in to post a comment.