Case: Document: 141 Page: 1 11/02/ cv. United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit ONONDAGA NATION,
|
|
- Harvey Casey
- 5 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 Case: Document: 141 Page: 1 11/02/ cv United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit ONONDAGA NATION, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK, GEORGE PATAKI, In His Individual Capacity and as Governor of New York State, ONONDAGA COUNTY, CITY OF SYRACUSE, HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL, INC., TRIGEN SYRACUSE ENERGY CORPORATION, CLARK CONCRETE COMPANY, INC., VALLEY REALTY DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, INC., and HANSON AGGREGATES NORTH AMERICA, Defendants-Appellees. ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK Case No. 05-cv U.S. District Judge Lawrence E. Kahn PETITION OF APPELLANT FOR REHEARING EN BANC Joseph Heath Law Office of Joseph Heath 512 Jamesville Avenue Syracuse, NY Tel: (315) jheath@atsny.com Lead Counsel for the Onondaga Nation Curtis G. Berkey BERKEY WILLIAMS LLP 2030 Addison Street, Suite 410 Berkeley, CA Tel: (510) cberkey@berkeywilliams.com Counsel for the Onondaga Nation Alexandra C. Page BERKEY WILLIAMS LLP 616 Whittier Street N.W. Washington, D.C Tel: (202) alex.c.page@gmail.com Counsel for the Onondaga Nation
2 Case: Document: 141 Page: 2 11/02/ TABLE OF CONTENTS Page No. TABLE OF AUTHORITIES...ii STATEMENT PURSUANT TO FED. R. APP. P. 35(b)(1)... 1 INTRODUCTION... 2 ARGUMENT... 4 I. En Banc Review is Necessary to Secure Uniformity of This Court s Decisions with Controlling Supreme Court Precedent on Indian Land Claims... 4 II. III. En Banc is Necessary to Make This Court s Decisions Consistent with Congress s Judgment That Indian Nations Should be Allowed to Bring Claims That Their Land was Acquired in Violation of Federal Law... 7 En Banc Review is Necessary to Make This Court s Decisions Consistent With Federal Equity Practice CONCLUSION PROOF OF SERVICE i
3 Case: Document: 141 Page: 3 11/02/ TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Cases Page No. Cayuga Indian Nation v. Pataki, 413 F.3d 266 (2d Cir. 2005), cert. denied, 547 U.S (2006)... passim City of Sherrill v. Oneida Indian Nation, 544 U.S. 197 (2005)... passim County of Oneida v. Oneida Indian Nation, 470 U.S. 226 (1985) (Oneida II)... passim Federal Power Comm n v. Tuscarora Indian Nation, 362 U.S. 99 (1960)... 3 Hecht Co. v. Bowles, 321 U.S. 321 (1944) Holmberg v. Armbrecht, 327 U.S. 392 (1946)... 9 Kansas v. Colorado, 514 U.S. 673 (1995) McKennon v. Nashville Banner Pub. Co., 513 U.S. 352 (1995)... 10, 12 Oneida Indian Nation v. County of Oneida, 617 F.3d 114 (2d Cir. 2010), cert. denied, 132 S.Ct. 452 (2011)... passim United States v. Oakland Cannabis Buyers Cooperative, 532 U.S. 483 (2001)... 8 Watson v. Geren, 587 F.3d 156 (2d Cir. 2009)... 1 ii
4 Case: Document: 141 Page: 4 11/02/ Statutes and Rules 1 Stat. 137, 25 U.S.C. 177, Trade and Intercourse Act of passim 7 Stat. 15, Treaty of Fort Stanwix of Stat. 44, Treaty of Canandaigua of U.S.C. 2415, Indian Claims Limitations Act of , 8, 9 Fed. R. App. P. 35(b)(1)... 1 Other Authorities S. Rep. No (1977)... 9 S. Rep. No (1980)... 9 iii
5 Case: Document: 141 Page: 5 11/02/ STATEMENT PURSUANT TO FED. R. APP. P. 35(b)(1) In a Summary Order, a panel of this Court affirmed the decision of the District Court for the Northern District of New York dismissing the land rights action of the Onondaga Nation. The Nation had sought a declaratory judgment that the State of New York, the City of Syracuse, the County of Onondaga and five corporate landowners hold interests in land in violation of the United States Constitution, the Trade and Intercourse Act of 1790 and several treaties with the Haudenosaunee or Six Nations Confederacy. The Onondaga Nation petitions this Court for rehearing en banc because the Panel Order, and the Circuit precedent on which it relies, conflict with the decisions of the Supreme Court in County of Oneida v. Oneida Indian Nation, 470 U.S. 226 (1985) ( Oneida II ); and City of Sherrill v. Oneida Indian Nation, 544 U.S. 187 (2005) ( City of Sherrill ). Consideration by the full Court is necessary to secure and maintain the uniformity of the court s decisions. Fed. R. App. P. 35(b)(1)(A). Moreover, this case presents an issue of exceptional importance because it raises important systematic consequences for the development of the law related to the application of equitable principles to legal claims. Watson v. Geren, 587 F.3d 156, 158 (2d Cir. 2009). 1
6 Case: Document: 141 Page: 6 11/02/ INTRODUCTION In 1790, President George Washington promised the Haudenosaunee or Six Nations Confederacy, which includes the Onondaga Nation, that the federal courts would be available to protect them from the efforts of the State of New York and others to take their lands unfairly. See Oneida II, 470 U.S. at 237 n.8 (quoting President Washington: No state... can purchase your lands, unless at some public treaty, held under the authority of the United States. The General Government will never consent to your being defrauded, but will protect you in all your just rights. If however, you should have any cause for complaint... the federal courts will be open to you for redress. ). That same year, Congress enacted Washington s promise into law by passing the Trade and Intercourse Act, which prohibited land transactions between Indian nations and the states absent congressional approval. The Act provided in relevant part: [t]hat no purchase or grant of lands, or of any title or claim thereto, from any Indians or nation or tribe of Indians, within the bounds of the United States, shall be of any validity in law or equity, unless the same be made by treaty or convention entered into pursuant to the constitution Stat. 137, now codified at 25 U.S.C The Act was designed to prevent unfair, improvident or improper disposition by Indians of lands owned or possessed by them to other parties, except the United States, without the consent 2
7 Case: Document: 141 Page: 7 11/02/ of Congress.... Federal Power Commission v. Tuscarora Indian Nation, 362 U.S. 99, 119 (1960). The United States also promised to protect the Six Nations in the security of their lands in the Treaty of Canandaigua of 1794, which provided that Onondaga land shall remain theirs until they choose to sell the same to the people of the United States, who have the right to purchase. 7 Stat. 44, Article II. The Onondaga Nation s lawsuit alleges that in the last two decades of the eighteenth century and the early decades of the nineteenth century, New York State acquired all but approximately 6,900 acres of the Nation s ancestral lands in violation of the Trade and Intercourse Act, the Treaty of Canandaigua of 1794 and the Treaty of Fort Stanwix of The Panel Order held that an equitable bar related to the disruptive nature of the claims required dismissal of the Onondagas claim, relying on this Court s decisions in Cayuga Indian Nation v. Pataki, 413 F.3d 266 (2d Cir. 2005), cert. denied, 547 U.S (2006) ( Cayuga ), and Oneida Indian Nation v. County of Oneida, 617 F.3d 114 (2010), cert. denied, 132 S.Ct. 452 (2011) ( Oneida ). The full Court should reconsider the Panel Order because it relied on prior rulings in Indian land claim cases that were wrongly decided. Cayuga and Oneida were incorrectly decided because: 1) they conflict with the controlling decisions of the Supreme Court in Oneida II and City of Sherrill; 2) they nullify the judgment of Congress in the Indian Claims Limitation Act of 1982 that 3
8 Case: Document: 141 Page: 8 11/02/ contemporary assertions of Indian land claims based on historic violations of federal law are timely and that the federal courts should be open to hear them; and 3) they substantially depart from federal equity practice and Supreme Court precedent that require balancing the equities and hardships among the litigants before determining that the entire claim is barred on equitable grounds. Because rehearing is necessary to ensure uniformity of the law related to Indian land claims, and because this case presents a question of exceptional importance related to the development of the law of equity in the Indian land claim context, en banc review should be granted. ARGUMENT I. En Banc Review is Necessary to Secure Uniformity of This Court s Decisions with Controlling Supreme Court Precedent on Indian Land Claims. The Panel dismissed the Onondaga Nation s suit on the basis of Cayuga and Oneida. The Panel purported to distill three equitable factors from these decisions to foreclose the Onondagas claims: 1) the length of time between the historical injustice (loss of Onondaga land at the hands of New York State) and the assertion of the claim; 2) the disruptive nature of the claims long delayed ; and 3) the degree to which the claims upset justifiable expectations of individuals and entities far removed from the events giving rise to the plaintiff s injury. Summary Order at 3. Although the Onondagas limited the relief sought to a 4
9 Case: Document: 141 Page: 9 11/02/ declaratory judgment and did not seek ejectment or any other coercive relief against any defendant or landowner, the Panel ruled that the claim is barred regardless of the form of remedy. Cayuga, Oneida and the Panel s Order conflict with the Supreme Court s ruling in Oneida II. In that case, the Supreme Court ruled that, notwithstanding the long passage of time between the historic wrong and the filing of the suit, Indian nations have a common law right of action for redress for the dispossession of their lands in violation of the Trade and Intercourse Act. 470 U.S. at 235. The Court emphasized that the passage of time did not bar the claims: One would have thought that claims dating back more than a century and a half would have been barred long ago. As our opinion indicates, however, neither petitioners nor we have found any applicable statute of limitations or other relevant legal basis for holding that the Oneidas claims are barred or otherwise have been satisfied. 470 U.S. at 253. The Court further held that although equitable considerations might affect the nature of the relief available to the Oneidas, such considerations did not bar the claims altogether. Id. at 253 n.27. Although the Court was not required to rule on the availability of laches as a bar to the claims, it nonetheless noted that the application of laches would appear to be inconsistent with established federal policy and the Court s precedents. Id. at 244 n
10 Case: Document: 141 Page: 10 11/02/ The Panel s reliance on disruptiveness as an equitable ground to preclude the Onondagas claims is likewise inconsistent with the Supreme Court s ruling in Oneida II. In that case, the Supreme Court affirmed a judgment that the 1795 purchase of 100,000 acres of Oneida land by the State of New York violated the Trade and Intercourse Act and was therefore invalid. In upholding the judgment, the Court was not deterred by the fact that the expectations of landowners in the Oneida claim area might have been disrupted. As Justice Stevens noted in dissent, the Court s decision upsets long-settled expectations in the ownership of real property. 470 U.S. at 273. The Court nonetheless determined that the Oneidas should be able to maintain a cause of action for violations of the Act that arose 175 years earlier. Finally, Cayuga, Oneida, and the Panel s Order conflict with the Supreme Court s decision in City of Sherrill. In that case, the Supreme Court ruled that because of the long lapse of time during which the Oneidas had not asserted sovereign control over land recently purchased, they could not seek an injunction precluding the City from taxing those parcels. 544 U.S. at Although the Court suggested that under certain circumstances the passage of time could bar certain forms of relief, it did not modify the central holding of Oneida II that the passage of time did not bar the Oneidas claim to the land. Instead, City of Sherrill expressly preserved Oneida II: the question of damages for the 6
11 Case: Document: 141 Page: 11 11/02/ Tribe s ancient dispossession is not at issue in this case, and we therefore do not disturb our holding in Oneida II. 544 U.S. at 221. Equally significant, the Court in City of Sherrill limited its ruling on the application of equitable considerations to remedies, clarifying that claims were to be treated differently. The Court explained that the substantive questions of whether the plaintiff has a right are very different from the issue of the kind of remedy available to vindicate that right. 544 U.S. at 213. Nothing in City of Sherrill suggests that the equitable considerations identified there should automatically be applied to preclude Indian land rights actions entirely, and especially not suits based on the Trade and Intercourse Act. The Court rejected the extraordinary relief requested rekindling embers of sovereignty that long ago grew cold not the Oneidas underlying claim that the Trade and Intercourse Act had been violated. Thus, the Panel s ruling here, based on Cayuga and Oneida, that the Onondaga Nation s claims are precluded ab initio, regardless of the particular remedy sought, cannot be squared with the Supreme Court s dispositive distinction between claims and remedies. II. En Banc Review is Necessary to Make This Court s Decisions Consistent with Congress s Judgment That Indian Nations Should be Allowed to Bring Claims That Their Land was Acquired in Violation of Federal Law. The Panel Opinion invoked equitable principles drawn from Cayuga and Oneida to bar the Onondagas claim. It is a fundamental principle of equity 7
12 Case: Document: 141 Page: 12 11/02/ jurisprudence, however, that equitable principles should not be applied to displace the judgment of Congress about the appropriate length of time within which a claim may be asserted. See, e.g., United States v. Oakland Cannabis Buyers Cooperative, 532 U.S. 483, 491 n.4 (2001) ( [c]ourts of equity cannot, in their discretion, reject the balance that Congress has struck in favor of their own.). Congress has carefully and thoroughly considered the societal interests and expectations implicated by Indian land rights actions under the Trade and Intercourse Act and determined that assertions of such suits today should not be subject to equitable time bars. The illegal takings of Indian lands are an historic injustice for which the courts should provide a remedy. As the Supreme Court explained in Oneida II, Congress has enacted no federal statute of limitations governing federal common-law actions by Indians to enforce property rights. 470 U.S. at 250. Instead, Congress has made clear in the Indian Claims Limitations Act of 1982 that no limitations period should bar Indian land claims under the Trade and Intercourse Act. Although the 1982 Act imposed a statute of limitations on certain tort and contract claims for damages brought by Indian nations, that limitations period expressly did not apply to claims made to establish title to, or the right to possession of, real or personal property. 28 U.S.C. 2415(c). Thus, Congress has intended that land claim actions such as the Onondagas should not be subject 8
13 Case: Document: 141 Page: 13 11/02/ to any limitations period. The 1982 Act presumes the existence of an Indian right of action not otherwise subject to any statute of limitations. Oneida II, 470 U.S. at 244. In developing this federal policy, Congress was fully aware that many of the Indian claims that could be brought were based on violations of the Trade and Intercourse Act that occurred two centuries ago, and that the expectations of non- Indian landowners regarding their titles could be disrupted. See., e.g., S. Rep. No , at 2 (1977) ( Many of these claims go back to the 18 th and 19 th centuries. ); S. Rep. No , at 9 (1980) ( This Committee is well aware of the magnitude of the eastern [Indian] land claims and the effect such claims are having in the jurisdiction where they may be litigated. ). Having been informed of the nature and scope of Indian claims under the Trade and Intercourse Act, Congress nonetheless determined that such claims should not be subject to any time bar. By applying an equitable bar to actions Congress has determined should be allowed to be maintained, the Panel impermissibly nullified Congress s judgment. For purposes of a limitations period, the policy adopted by Congress is definitive and the end of the matter. Holmberg v. Armbrecht, 327 U.S. 392, 395 (1946). Consideration by the full Court is necessary to bring this Court s decisions into uniformity with Supreme Court precedent and Congress s judgment. 9
14 Case: Document: 141 Page: 14 11/02/ III. En Banc Review is Necessary to Make This Court s Decisions Consistent With Federal Equity Practice. By relying on Cayuga and Oneida, the Panel substantially departed from established federal equity practice. Equitable principles have long been part of the fabric of federal Indian law. Those principles require courts to take into account the disruption and hardship experienced by the Onondaga Nation as a result of New York s unlawful acquisition of its lands. Equity also requires consideration of the historic and ongoing efforts of the Nation to seek redress. Further, federal equity practice recognizes the unclean hands doctrine, which denies equitable relief to a party that has engaged in reprehensible conduct. McKennon v. Nashville Banner Pub. Co., 513 U.S. 352, 360 (1995). In City of Sherrill, the Supreme Court based its decision on standards of federal Indian law and federal equity practice. 544 U.S. at 214. Under the general principles of equity which City of Sherrill espoused, the equitable circumstances of both parties should be considered and weighed. The essence of equity jurisdiction has been the power of the [court] to do equity and to mould each decree to the necessities of the particular case. Hecht Co. v. Bowles, 321 U.S. 321, 329 (1944). In that case, the Supreme Court explained that traditional equity practice consists of [f]lexibility rather than rigidity and includes qualities of mercy and practicality. Id. Moreover, the equitable doctrine of 10
15 Case: Document: 141 Page: 15 11/02/ laches, as established by the Supreme Court, requires proof of lack of diligence by the party against whom the doctrine is asserted and prejudice to the party asserting the defense. Kansas v. Colorado, 514 U.S. 673, 687 (1995). In departing from these principles, the Panel was blind to the equities favoring the Onondaga Nation. These equities arose from the hardship caused by the loss of its lands and from the fact that the Onondaga Nation diligently pursued every available opportunity to seek the return of their lands throughout the two hundred years since the State took them in violation of the Trade and Intercourse Act. Contrary to established federal principles, the Panel s application of equity was rigid and one-sided, rather than flexible and balanced. The loss of Onondaga Nation land has deprived them of traditional hunting, fishing and gathering sites and nearly foreclosed these traditional practices. Access to important cultural, burial and ceremonial sites has been denied for generations. The lands of the Onondaga Nation have been polluted and degraded, which the Nation has largely been powerless to stop because others control those lands. And the Nation has diligently, though so far unsuccessfully, pursued redress. Federal equity practice requires these considerations to be taken into account. Finally, the historical record contains indisputable evidence that the State of New York comes to this Court with unclean hands. The State deceived the 11
16 Case: Document: 141 Page: 16 11/02/ Onondagas about the nature of transactions to purchase their land, leading them to believe that they were leasing rather than selling their lands. Declaration of Professor J. David Lehman at (Joint Appendix ). The State also knew that it was dealing with individuals who had no authority from the Onondaga Nation to negotiate about land. Id. The State also knew that it was violating federal law by negotiating land transactions with the Onondagas in the absence of congressional authorization. Oneida II, 470 U.S. at 232 (noting Secretary of War Pickering s warnings to New York Governors Clinton and Jay that federal law required prior authorization to make land deals with Indian nations). The bargain struck by the State was grossly unfair to the Onondagas, who were paid about $33,000 for all of the thousands of acres lost between 1788 and Declaration of Professor J. David Lehman at 4 (Joint Appendix 190). Equity s maxim [is] that a suitor who engaged in his own reprehensible conduct in the course of the transaction at issue must be denied equitable relief because of unclean hands.... McKennon v. Nashville Banner Pub. Co., 513 U.S. at 360. The Panel s failure, pursuant to Cayuga and Oneida, to consider the countervailing equities of the Onondaga Nation and the unclean hands of the State of New York is inconsistent with federal equity doctrine. En banc review is necessary to address a question of exceptional importance regarding whether and to what extent this Court may contravene established federal equity principles. 12
17 Case: Document: 141 Page: 17 11/02/ granted. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, the Petition for En Banc review should be Dated: November 2, 2012 Respectfully submitted, /s/joseph J. Heath Joseph J. Heath Law Office of Joseph Heath Admission Date: 02/19/1999, last renewed on 11/16/ Jamesville Avenue Syracuse, NY Tel: (315) /s/curtis G. Berkey Curtis G. Berkey Admission Date: 04/27/1984, last renewed on 08/16/2010 BERKEY WILLIAMS LLP 2030 Addison Street, Suite 410 Berkeley, CA Tel: (510) /s/alexandra C. Page Alexandra C. Page Admission Date: 09/23/03, last renewed on 08/10/2010 BERKEY WILLIAMS LLP 616 Whittier Street N.W. Washington, D.C Tel: (202) Counsel for Appellant the Onondaga Nation 13
18 Case: Document: 141 Page: 18 11/02/ PROOF OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on November 2, 2012, I electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk of the Court for the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit using the appellate CM/ECF system. I certify that all participants in the case are registered CM/ECF users and that service will be accomplished by the appellate CM/ECF system. /s/joseph J. Heath Joseph J. Heath Law Office of Joseph Heath Admission Date: 02/19/1999, last renewed on 11/16/ Jamesville Avenue Syracuse, NY Tel: (315) jheath@atsny.com
United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit ONONDAGA NATION, Plaintiff-Appellant,
!aaassseee::: 111000- - -444222777333 DDDooocccuuummmeeennnttt::: 888111 PPPaaagggeee::: 111 000222///222888///222000111222 555333777999999888 777000 10-4273-cv United States Court of Appeals for the Second
More informationNo IN THE Supreme Court of the United States
No. 14-538 IN THE Supreme Court of the United States STOCKBRIDGE-MUNSEE COMMUNITY, Petitioner, v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK; MARIO CUOMO, as Governor of the State of New York; NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF
More informationPlaintiff, v. Civil Action No. Defendants. COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT. I. Nature of the Action
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK THE ONONDAGA NATION, Plaintiff, v. Civil Action No. THE STATE OF NEW YORK; GEORGE PATAKI, IN HIS INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY AND AS GOVERNOR OF NEW YORK
More informationUnited States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Case: 10-4273-cv Document: 103 Page: 1 05/25/2012 621083 69 United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit ONONDAGA NATION, v. Plaintiff-Appellant, THE STATE OF NEW YORK, GEORGE PATAKI, IN HIS INDIVIDUAL
More informationCase 5:82-cv LEK-TWD Document 605 Filed 02/04/13 Page 1 of 16 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
Case 5:82-cv-00783-LEK-TWD Document 605 Filed 02/04/13 Page 1 of 16 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK THE CANADIAN ST. REGIS BAND OF MOHAWK INDIANS, Plaintiff, UNITED STATES
More informationIn The Supreme Court of the United States
No. ================================================================ In The Supreme Court of the United States --------------------------------- --------------------------------- STOCKBRIDGE-MUNSEE COMMUNITY,
More informationCase 6:11-cv CJS Document 76 Filed 12/11/18 Page 1 of 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK. Defendant.
Case 6:11-cv-06004-CJS Document 76 Filed 12/11/18 Page 1 of 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK CAYUGA INDIAN NATION OF NEW YORK, -v- SENECA COUNTY, NEW YORK, Plaintiff, Defendant.
More informationArgued: June 3, Decided: Aug. 9, 2010.
2010 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works. --- F.3d ----, 2010 WL 3078266 (C.A.2 (N.Y.)) Only the Westlaw citation is currently available. United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit. ONEIDA
More informationUNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
07-2430-cv(L), 07-2548-cv(XAP), 07-2550-cv(XAP) Oneida Indian Nation of New York, et al. v. County of Oneida, et al. 1 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 2 FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT 3 4 August Term 2007 5 6 7
More informationupreme ( eurt e[ the nite
Nos. 10-1404 and 10-1420 upreme ( eurt e[ the nite UNITED STATES, Petitioner, STATE OF NEW YORK, et al., Respondents. ONEIDA INDIAN NATION OF NEW YORK, et al., Petitioners, v. COUNTY OF ONEIDA, et al.,
More informationBRIEF FOR RESPONDENTS IN OPPOSITION
No. 15-1215 In the Supreme Court of the United States SHINNECOCK INDIAN NATION, Petitioner, v. STATE OF NEW YORK, et al., Respondents. On Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
Case: 07-56424 08/24/2009 Page: 1 of 6 DktEntry: 7038488 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ROBERT M. NELSON, et al. Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. No. 07-56424 NATIONAL AERONAUTICS
More informationSupreme Court of the United States
No. 15-1215 ================================================================ In The Supreme Court of the United States --------------------------------- --------------------------------- SHINNECOCK INDIAN
More informationUnited States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Case: 13-1564 Document: 138 140 Page: 1 Filed: 03/10/2015 2013-1564 United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit SCA HYGIENE PRODUCTS AKTIEBOLOG AND SCA PERSONAL CARE INC., Plaintiffs-Appellants,
More informationCase 5:82-cv NPM-TWD Document 557 Filed 02/07/11 Page 1 of 29 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
Case 5:82-cv-00783-NPM-TWD Document 557 Filed 02/07/11 Page 1 of 29 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK THE ST. REGIS MOHAWK TRIBE, by THE ST. REGIS ) MOHAWK TRIBAL COUNCIL, and
More informationNo IN THE Supreme Court of the United States. MADISON COUNTY and ONEIDA COUNTY, NEW YORK, v. ONEIDA INDIAN NATION OF NEW YORK,
No. 12-604 IN THE Supreme Court of the United States MADISON COUNTY and ONEIDA COUNTY, NEW YORK, v. ONEIDA INDIAN NATION OF NEW YORK, STOCKBRIDGE-MUNSEE COMMUNITY, BAND OF MOHICAN INDIANS, Petitioners,
More information(L) and (CON)
Case 14-4445, Document 61, 06/03/2015, 1524233, Page1 of 54 14-4445(L) and 14-4447(CON) United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit THE SHINNECOCK INDIAN NATION Plaintiff-Appellant, -v.- STATE
More informationCase 1:05-cv TLL-CEB Document 133 Filed 11/03/2008 Page 1 of 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN NORTHERN DIVISION
Case 1:05-cv-10296-TLL-CEB Document 133 Filed 11/03/2008 Page 1 of 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN NORTHERN DIVISION SAGINAW CHIPPEWA INDIAN TRIBE Plaintiff, Case No. 05-10296-BC
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
Case: 14-55900, 04/11/2017, ID: 10392099, DktEntry: 59, Page 1 of 11 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION BUREAU, Appellee, v. No. 14-55900 GREAT PLAINS
More informationCase No IN THE United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit DAVID JOHN SLATER, WILDLIFE PERSONALITIES, LTD.,
Case: 16-15469, 06/15/2018, ID: 10910417, DktEntry: 64, Page 1 of 10 Case No. 16-15469 IN THE United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit NARUTO, A CRESTED MACAQUE, BY AND THROUGH HIS NEXT FRIENDS,
More informationIn the Supreme Court of the United States
No. 14-1406 In the Supreme Court of the United States STATE OF NEBRASKA ET AL., PETITIONERS v. MITCH PARKER, ET AL. ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH
More informationThe Misuse of History in Dismissing Six Nations Confederacy Land Claims
American Indian Law Review Volume 42 Number 2 2018 The Misuse of History in Dismissing Six Nations Confederacy Land Claims Curtis G. Berkey Alexandra C. Page Lindsay G. Robertson Follow this and additional
More information1a UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT. No Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Alaska
1a UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT No. 03-35303 TERRY L. WHITMAN, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, V. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION; NORMAN Y. MINETA, U.S. SECRETARY OF TRANSPORTATION, DEFENDANT-APPELLEES.
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO TRANSFER AND HOLD CASES IN ABEYANCE
Case: 17-72260, 10/02/2017, ID: 10601894, DktEntry: 19, Page 1 of 11 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT SAFER CHEMICALS HEALTHY FAMILIES, ET AL., Petitioners, v. UNITED STATES
More informationNo United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Case: 09-35860 10/14/2010 Page: 1 of 16 ID: 7508761 DktEntry: 41-1 No. 09-35860 United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Kenneth Kirk, Carl Ekstrom, and Michael Miller, Plaintiffs-Appellants
More informationPUBLISH TENTH CIRCUIT. Plaintiffs-Appellees, No
PUBLISH FILED United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit September 19, 2007 Elisabeth A. Shumaker UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Clerk of Court TENTH CIRCUIT MINER ELECTRIC, INC.; RUSSELL E. MINER, v.
More informationNo IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-3452 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Petitioner-Appellee, v. Union Pacific Railroad Company, Respondent-Appellant. Appeal From
More informationCase 1:06-cv JR Document 19 Filed 10/01/2007 Page 1 of 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Case 1:06-cv-02249-JR Document 19 Filed 10/01/2007 Page 1 of 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA THE OSAGE TRIBE OF INDIANS ) OF OKLAHOMA v. ) Civil Action No. 04-0283 (JR) KEMPTHORNE,
More informationNo UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT. VALERIE SOTO, as Guardian Ad Litem of Y.D., a minor, Plaintiff-Appellant,
Case: 17-16705, 11/22/2017, ID: 10665607, DktEntry: 15, Page 1 of 20 No. 17-16705 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT VALERIE SOTO, as Guardian Ad Litem of Y.D., a minor, Plaintiff-Appellant,
More information33n t~e ~upreme ~:ourt ot t~e i~lnite~ ~tate~
No. 09-846 33n t~e ~upreme ~:ourt ot t~e i~lnite~ ~tate~ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PETITIONER ~). TOHONO O ODHAM NATION ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE
More informationNo UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
Case: 09-16942 09/22/2009 Page: 1 of 66 DktEntry: 7070869 No. 09-16942 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT CACHIL DEHE BAND OF WINTUN INDIANS OF THE COLUSA INDIAN COMMUNITY, a federally
More informationUnited States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential. United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 2010-5012 PETER H. BEER, TERRY J. HATTER, JR., THOMAS F. HOGAN, RICHARD A. PAEZ, JAMES ROBERTSON, LAURENCE H.
More informationCase 5:17-cv GTS-ATB Document 17 Filed 01/12/18 Page 1 of 18 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
Case 5:17-cv-01035-GTS-ATB Document 17 Filed 01/12/18 Page 1 of 18 ONEIDA INDIAN NATION 1 Territory Road Oneida, NY 13421, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK Plaintiff,
More informationIn the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Case: 11-50814 Document: 00511723798 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/12/2012 No. 11-50814 In the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit TEXAS MEDICAL PROVIDERS PERFORMING ABORTION SERVICES, doing
More informationUNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
Appeal: 12-2000 Doc: 101-1 Filed: 08/29/2013 Pg: 1 of 8 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Petitioner v. No. 12-1514 ENTERPRISE LEASING COMPANY Board Case
More informationAppeal No UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT MUCKLESHOOT INDIAN TRIBE, TULALIP TRIBES, et al.,
Case: 18-35441, 10/24/2018, ID: 11059304, DktEntry: 20, Page 1 of 20 Appeal No. 18-35441 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT MUCKLESHOOT INDIAN TRIBE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. TULALIP TRIBES,
More informationNo IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT. Ute Indian Tribe of the Uintah and Ouray Reservation, et al.
Appellate Case: 16-4154 Document: 01019730944 Date Filed: 12/05/2016 Page: 1 No. 16-4154 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT Ute Indian Tribe of the Uintah and Ouray Reservation,
More informationNo IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
No. 16-4159 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT OWNER-OPERATOR INDEPENDENT DRIVERS ASSOCIATION, INC. (a.k.a. OOIDA ) AND SCOTT MITCHELL, Petitioners, vs. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT
More informationNo. 14-538 Supreme Court, U.S. 3fn DEC 1 2 2014 s;upreme of tbe alinit CIXP.!< ----------- ----------- STOCKBRIDGE-MUNSEE COMMUNITY, v. STATE OF NEW YORK, et al., -------------- -------------- Petitioner,
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT United States of America, v. Plaintiff-Appellee, Case No. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona No. CV 10-1413-PHX-SRB
More informationIn the Supreme Court of the United States
No. 14-1495 In the Supreme Court of the United States ALVARO ADAME, v. Petitioner, LORETTA E. LYNCH, ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent. On Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals
More informationIn The Supreme Court of the United States
No. 14-340 ================================================================ In The Supreme Court of the United States --------------------------------- --------------------------------- FRIENDS OF AMADOR
More informationUNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT
14 4445(L) Shinnecock Indian Nation v. New York, et al. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT SUMMARY ORDER RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY
More informationIn the Supreme Court of the United States
No. 16-1320 In the Supreme Court of the United States UPSTATE CITIZENS FOR EQUALITY, INC., ET AL., PETITIONERS v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ET AL. ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES
More informationBarry LeBeau, individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated, United States
No. Barry LeBeau, individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated, v. Petitioner, United States Respondent. On Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals
More informationUSCA No UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Appellee, SANTANA DRAPEAU, Appellant.
==================================================================== IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT USCA No. 14-3890 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Appellee, v. SANTANA DRAPEAU,
More informationNo In the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit RICHARD DOUGLAS HACKFORD, Plaintiff-Appellant,
Appellate Case: 15-4120 Document: 01019548299 Date Filed: 01/04/2016 Page: 1 No. 15-4120 In the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit RICHARD DOUGLAS HACKFORD, v. Plaintiff-Appellant, STATE
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT. Edward Peruta, et al,, Case No
Case: 10-56971, 04/22/2015, ID: 9504505, DktEntry: 238-1, Page 1 of 21 (1 of 36) IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT Edward Peruta, et al,, Case No. 10-56971 Plaintiffs-Appellants,
More informationDocket No UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT. Appellant, Appellees.
Docket No. 03-35306 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JAMES RICHARD SMITH, -vs.- Appellant, SALISH KOOTENAI COLLEGE, a Montana corporation, and the COURT OF APPEALS OF THE CONFEDERATED
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
Case: 07-56424 06/08/2009 Page: 1 of 7 DktEntry: 6949062 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ROBERT M. NELSON, et al. Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. No. 07-56424 NATIONAL AERONAUTICS
More informationCase 1:05-cv JGP Document 79 Filed 03/05/2007 Page 1 of 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Case 1:05-cv-01181-JGP Document 79 Filed 03/05/2007 Page 1 of 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA MICHIGAN GAMBLING OPPOSITION ( MichGO, a Michigan non-profit corporation, Plaintiff,
More informationNo Supreme Court of the United States. Argued Dec. 1, Decided Feb. 24, /11 JUSTICE MARSHALL delivered the opinion of the Court.
FOR EDUCATIONAL USE ONLY Copr. West 2000 No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works 480 U.S. 9 IOWA MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Petitioner v. Edward M. LaPLANTE et al. No. 85-1589. Supreme Court of the United States
More informationSMDFUND, Inc. v. Fort Wayne-Allen County Airport Auth. 831 N.E.2d 725 Supreme Court of Indiana, August 2, 2005,
SMDFUND, Inc. v. Fort Wayne-Allen County Airport Auth Readers were referred to this case on page 243 of the 9 th edition SMDFUND, Inc. v. Fort Wayne-Allen County Airport Auth. 831 N.E.2d 725 Supreme Court
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA BILLINGS DIVISION ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
Case 1:16-cv-00011-BMM Document 45 Filed 03/29/16 Page 1 of 12 Mark A. Echo Hawk (pro hac vice ECHO HAWK & OLSEN, PLLC 505 Pershing Ave., Suite 100 PO Box 6119 Pocatello, Idaho 83205-6119 Phone: (208 478-1624
More information5 Suits Against Federal Officers or Employees
5 Suits Against Federal Officers or Employees 5.01 INTRODUCTION TO SUITS AGAINST FEDERAL OFFICERS OR EMPLOYEES Although the primary focus in this treatise is upon litigation claims against the federal
More informationNo IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES LUMMI NATION, ET AL., PETITIONERS SAMISH INDIAN TRIBE, ET AL.
No. 05-445 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES LUMMI NATION, ET AL., PETITIONERS v. SAMISH INDIAN TRIBE, ET AL. ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE
More informationCase 2:13-cv GJQ ECF No. 58 filed 07/27/15 Page 1 of 9 PageID.1293 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN NORTHERN DIVISION
Case 2:13-cv-00106-GJQ ECF No. 58 filed 07/27/15 Page 1 of 9 PageID.1293 BRENDA TURUNEN, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN NORTHERN DIVISION v Plaintiff, No. 2:13-cv-00106 KEITH
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
Case: 09-56786 12/18/2012 ID: 8443743 DktEntry: 101 Page: 1 of 6 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ROSALINA CUELLAR DE OSORIO; et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. ALEJANDRO MAYORKAS;
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT. No Non-Argument Calendar
Case: 15-13358 Date Filed: 03/30/2017 Page: 1 of 10 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT No. 15-13358 Non-Argument Calendar D.C. Docket No. 1:15-cv-20389-FAM, Bkcy No. 12-bkc-22368-LMI
More information[NOT YET SCHEDULED FOR ORAL ARGUMENT] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
USCA Case #18-5289 Document #1752834 Filed: 09/27/2018 Page 1 of 10 [NOT YET SCHEDULED FOR ORAL ARGUMENT] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT AMERICAN FEDERATION
More informationTHE FLORIDA SUPREME COURT. S. Ct. Case No.: SC15-1 District Court Case No.: 4D MEDYTOX SOLUTIONS, INC., SEAMUS LAGAN and WILLIAM G.
Filing # 22446391 E-Filed 01/12/2015 03:46:22 PM THE FLORIDA SUPREME COURT S. Ct. Case No.: SC15-1 District Court Case No.: 4D-13-3469 MEDYTOX SOLUTIONS, INC., SEAMUS LAGAN and WILLIAM G. FORHAN, Petitioners,
More informationNo IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
USCA Case #11-1265 Document #1427683 Filed: 03/27/2013 Page 1 of 16 No. 11-1265 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT ) AMERICANS FOR SAFE ACCESS, et al. ) ) Petitioners
More informationNOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION File Name: 07a0585n.06 Filed: August 14, Case No
NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION File Name: 07a0585n.06 Filed: August 14, 2007 Case No. 03-5681 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT RONNIE LEE BOWLING, Petitioner-Appellant, v.
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT THE LOAN SYNDICATIONS AND TRADING ASSOCIATION, Petitioner-Appellant, v. No. 17-5004 SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION; BOARD
More informationUNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
Case: 17-80213, 11/09/2017, ID: 10649704, DktEntry: 6-2, Page 1 of 15 Appeal No. 17 80213 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT MARLON H. CRYER, individually and on behalf of a class of
More informationNo UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT. REBECCA FRIEDRICHS, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants,
Case: 13-57095 07/01/2014 ID: 9153024 DktEntry: 17 Page: 1 of 8 No. 13-57095 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT REBECCA FRIEDRICHS, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. CALIFORNIA TEACHERS
More informationUnited States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
No. 2016-1346 IN THE United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit REGENERON PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., Appellant v. MERUS N.V., Appellee Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern
More informationNo IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT. SUSAN WATERS, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees.
No. 15-1452 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT SUSAN WATERS, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees. v. PETE RICKETTS, in his official capacity as Governor of Nebraska, et al., Defendants-Appellants.
More informationUNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
Case: 12-16258, 09/13/2016, ID: 10122368, DktEntry: 102-1, Page 1 of 5 (1 of 23) UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT CHRISTOPHER BAKER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. LOUIS KEALOHA, et al., Defendants-Appellees.
More informationCase 5:14-cv DMG-DTB Document 110 Filed 08/27/15 Page 1 of 6 Page ID #:925
Case :-cv-0000-dmg-dtb Document 0 Filed 0// Page of Page ID #: 0 FIFTH AVENUE, SUITE 00 SEATTLE, WA 0 0 0 DAVID J. MASUTANI (CA Bar No. 0) dmasutani@alvaradosmith.com ALVARADOSMITH, A Professional Corporation
More informationNo IN THE United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
No. 17-15589 IN THE United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit STATE OF HAWAII, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. DONALD J. TRUMP, et al., Defendants-Appellants. On Appeal from the United States
More informationCase 1:05-cv TLL -CEB Document 274 Filed 11/10/10 Page 1 of 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN NORTHERN DIVISION
Case 1:05-cv-10296-TLL -CEB Document 274 Filed 11/10/10 Page 1 of 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN NORTHERN DIVISION SAGINAW CHIPPEWA INDIAN TRIBE OF MICHIGAN, ET AL., Plaintiffs,
More informationAPPELLANT S PETITION FOR REHEARING EN BANC
APPEAL NO. 13-1879 CROSS APEAL NO. 13-1931 In the UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS for the EIGHTH CIRCUIT Choice Escrow and Land Title, LLC, Plaintiff Appellant/Cross-Appellee, v. BancorpSouth Bank, Defendant
More informationSupreme Court of the United States
No. 12-376 IN THE Supreme Court of the United States JOHN V. FURRY, as Personal Representative Of the Estate and Survivors of Tatiana H. Furry, v. Petitioner, MICCOSUKEE TRIBE OF INDIANS OF FLORIDA; MICCOSUKEE
More informationCase 2:16-cv SWS Document 226 Filed 04/16/18 Page 1 of 7
Case 2:16-cv-00285-SWS Document 226 Filed 04/16/18 Page 1 of 7 Eric P. Waeckerlin Pro Hac Vice Samuel Yemington Wyo. Bar No. 75150 Holland & Hart LLP 555 17th Street, Suite 3200 Tel: 303.892.8000 Fax:
More informationUNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT No (Consolidated with No )
Case: 15-15857, 01/26/2018, ID: 10740042, DktEntry: 76-1, Page 1 of 25 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT No. 15-15857 (Consolidated with No. 15-15754) GRAND CANYON TRUST, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants,
More informationNos and IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEAL FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
Case: 06-56325 10/27/2009 Page: 1 of 15 DktEntry: 7109530 Nos. 06-56325 and 06-56406 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEAL FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT CLAUDE CASSIRER, Plaintiff/Appellee v. KINGDOM OF SPAIN,
More informationNo IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al., STATE OF WASHINGTON,
Case: 13-35474, 09/29/2016, ID: 10142617, DktEntry: 136, Page 1 of 20 No. 13-35474 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al., v. Plaintiffs-Appellees,
More informationCase 2:13-cv DB Document 2 Filed 12/03/13 Page 1 of 10
Case 213-cv-01070-DB Document 2 Filed 12/03/13 Page 1 of 10 J. Preston Stieff (4764) J. Preston Stieff Law Offices 136 East South Temple, Suite 2400 Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 Telephone (801) 366-6002
More informationREPLY BRIEF OF APPELLANTS
Case: 15-36003, 09/19/2016, ID: 10127799, DktEntry: 26, Page 1 of 14 Docket No. 15-36003 In the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit GLENN EAGLEMAN, et al. Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. ROCKY
More informationSupreme Court of the United States
No. 17-532 ================================================================ In The Supreme Court of the United States --------------------------------- --------------------------------- CLAYVIN HERRERA,
More informationUSCA Case # Document # Filed: 09/09/2011 Page 1 of 8 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
USCA Case #11-1265 Document #1328728 Filed: 09/09/2011 Page 1 of 8 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT AMERICANS FOR SAFE ACCESS, et al., ) ) Petitioners, ) ) No. 11-1265
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF HAWAII ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
Case 1:05-cv-00725-JMS-LEK Document 32 Filed 08/07/2006 Page 1 of 22 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF HAWAII In re: HAWAIIAN AIRLINES, INC., a Hawaii corporation, Debtor. ROBERT
More informationUNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
USCA Case #19-5042 Document #1779028 Filed: 03/24/2019 Page 1 of 9 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT : DAMIEN GUEDUES, et al., : : No. 19-5042 Appellants : : Consolidated
More informationCase 5:82-cv LEK-TWD Document 590 Filed 11/16/12 Page 1 of 34 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
Case 5:82-cv-00783-LEK-TWD Document 590 Filed 11/16/12 Page 1 of 34 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK THE CANADIAN ST. REGIS BAND OF MOHAWK INDIANS, Plaintiff, UNITED STATES
More informationIn the Supreme Court of the United States. District of Columbia and Mayor Adrian M. Fenty, Petitioners, Dick Heller, et al.
In the Supreme Court of the United States 6 2W7 District of Columbia and Mayor Adrian M. Fenty, Petitioners, Dick Heller, et al. ON APPLICATION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE A PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI
More informationNo IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT. MICHELLE FLANAGAN, ET AL., Plaintiffs-Appellants,
Case: 18-55717, 09/21/2018, ID: 11020720, DktEntry: 12, Page 1 of 21 No. 18-55717 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT MICHELLE FLANAGAN, ET AL., Plaintiffs-Appellants, V. XAVIER
More informationAssignment. Federal Question Jurisdiction. Text Problem Case: Louisville and Nashville Railroad v. Mottley
Assignment Federal Question Jurisdiction Text... 1-5 Problem.... 6-7 Case: Louisville and Nashville Railroad v. Mottley... 8-10 Statutes: 28 U.S.C. 1331, 1442(a), 1257 Federal Question Jurisdiction 28
More informationNo CLAYVIN HERRERA, Petitioner, STATE OF WYOMING, Respondent.
No. 17-532 FILED JUN z 5 2018 OFFICE OF THE CLERK SUPREME COURT, U.S. CLAYVIN HERRERA, Petitioner, STATE OF WYOMING, Respondent. On Petition For A Writ Of Certiorari To The District Court Of Wyoming, Sheridan
More information15-20-CV FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT. ALLCO FINANCE LIMITED Plaintiff-Appellant
15-20-CV To Be Argued By: ROBERT D. SNOOK Assistant Attorney General IN THE United States Court of Appeals FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT ALLCO FINANCE LIMITED Plaintiff-Appellant v. ROBERT KLEE, in his Official
More informationUnited States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit CANCER RESEARCH TECHNOLOGY LIMITED AND SCHERING CORPORATION, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. BARR LABORATORIES, INC. AND BARR PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., Defendants-Appellees.
More informationThe Struggle to Preserve Tribal Sovereignty in Alabama David Smith Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton, LLP. Introduction
The Struggle to Preserve Tribal Sovereignty in Alabama David Smith Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton, LLP Introduction Over the last decade, the state of Alabama, including the Alabama Supreme Court, has
More informationUNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT MOTION TO INTERVENE IN PETITION FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT Americans for Safe Access, et al., ) ) Petitioners, ) No. 11-1265 ) v. ) ) Drug Enforcement Administration, ) ) Respondent. ) MOTION
More informationCase: Document: 51 Page: 1 01/02/ United States Court of Appeals. for the Second Circuit CAYUGA INDIAN NATION OF NEW YORK,
Case: 12-3723 Document: 51 Page: 1 01/02/2013 805229 62 12-3723-cv United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit CAYUGA INDIAN NATION OF NEW YORK, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. SENECA COUNTY, NEW YORK,
More informationSupreme Court of the United States
No. 17-387 IN THE Supreme Court of the United States UPPER SKAGIT INDIAN TRIBE, v. Petitioner, SHARLINE LUNDGREN AND RAY LUNDGREN, Respondents. ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT
More informationUnited States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Case: 14-80121 09/11/2014 ID: 9236871 DktEntry: 4 Page: 1 of 13 Docket No. 14-80121 United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit MICHAEL A. COBB, v. CITY OF STOCKTON, CALIFORNIA, IN RE: CITY OF
More informationCase 5:14-cv DNH-ATB Document 38 Filed 12/19/14 Page 1 of 7 5:14-CV-1317
Case 5:14-cv-01317-DNH-ATB Document 38 Filed 12/19/14 Page 1 of 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - CAYUGA NATION
More information[NOT YET SCHEDULED FOR ORAL ARGUMENT] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
USCA Case #18-5289 Document #1754397 Filed: 10/09/2018 Page 1 of 8 [NOT YET SCHEDULED FOR ORAL ARGUMENT] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT AMERICAN FEDERATION OF
More informationUnited States Court of Appeals. Federal Circuit
Case: 12-1170 Case: CASE 12-1170 PARTICIPANTS Document: ONLY 99 Document: Page: 1 97 Filed: Page: 03/10/2014 1 Filed: 03/07/2014 2012-1170 United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit SUPREMA,
More informationUnited States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
Case: 11-2288 Document: 006111258259 Filed: 03/28/2012 Page: 1 11-2288 United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit GERALDINE A. FUHR, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. HAZEL PARK SCHOOL DISTRICT, Defendant-Appellee.
More information