Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
Tribal Sovereignty, Tribal Immunity Kiowa Tribe v. Manufacturing Technologies , 523 U.S. 751 (1998), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that an Indian Nation were entitled to sovereign immunity from contract lawsuits, whether made on or off reservation, or involving governmental or commercial activities.
This is a list of U.S. Supreme Court cases involving Native American Tribes.Included in the list are Supreme Court cases that have a major component that deals with the relationship between tribes, between a governmental entity and tribes, tribal sovereignty, tribal rights (including property, hunting, fishing, religion, etc.) and actions involving members of tribes.
C & L then sought to enforce the arbitration clause and the tribe claimed sovereign immunity. The arbitrator ruled in favor of C & L and C & L filed suit to enforce the judgment in the District Court of Oklahoma County. [1] The trial court denied the tribes motion to dismiss based upon sovereign immunity and the tribe appealed.
Apr. 27—The Alaska Supreme Court on Friday extended tribal sovereign immunity to a tribal consortium, overruling a decision it made 20 years ago that refused to take a similar step. In simple ...
In Federal tax refund cases filed by taxpayers (as opposed to third parties) against the United States, various courts have indicated that Federal sovereign immunity is waived under subsection (a)(1) of 28 U.S.C. § 1346 in conjunction with Internal Revenue Code section 7422 (26 U.S.C. § 7422), or under section 7422 in conjunction with ...
Sovereign immunity, or crown immunity, is a legal doctrine whereby a sovereign or state cannot commit a legal wrong and is immune from civil suit or criminal prosecution, strictly speaking in modern texts in its own courts.
Lewis v. Clarke, 581 U.S. ___ (2017), is a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States ruled 8–0 that tribal sovereign immunity does not apply in a suit against a tribal employee in his individual capacity, and an indemnification provision cannot extend tribal sovereign immunity to cases in which it would otherwise not apply.
Michigan v. Bay Mills Indian Community, 572 U.S. 782 (2014), was a United States Supreme Court case examining whether a federal court has jurisdiction over activity that violates the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act but takes place off Indian lands, and, if so, whether tribal sovereign immunity prevents a state from suing in federal court. [1]