Casino Resource Corporation v. Harrah's Entertainment, Inc. (2001)

Cf. Harrah’s, 243 F.3d at 439 (“Not every contract that is merely peripherally associated with tribal gaming is subject to IGRA’s constraints.”).

For example, courts have held that IGRA’s preemptive scope is not implicated in cases involving gaming management and service contracts with a tribe, id. at 438-39; contracts to acquire materials to build a casino, Barona Band, 528 F.3d at 1192 ; and release of detailed investigative reports on the management of gaming, Siletz, 143 F.3d at 487 .

Corp. v. Harrah’s Entm’t, Inc., 243 F.3d 435 , 440 (8th Cir. 2001) (“the Nation (a non- party) can be protected in the discovery process, e.g., Fed.

Id. at 438.

Corp. v. Harrah’s Entm’t, Inc., 243 F.3d at 437 (8th Cir. 2001) (quoting Gaming Corp. of Am. v. Dorsey & Whitney, 88 F.3d 536, 549 (8th Cir. 1996)).

As the Casino Resource court correctly noted: "Not every contract that is merely peripherally associated with tribal gaming is subject to IGRA's constraints." Casino Resource , 243 F.3d at 439.

As the Casino Resource court correctly noted: "Not every contract that is merely peripherally associated with tribal gaming is subject to IGRA's constraints." Casino Resource , 243 F.3d at 439.

Corp., 243 F.3d at 438-39.

In contrast, the instant case presents the issue of whether IGRA preempts state law claims by one non-tribal entity against another, when resolution requires some review of a contract terminating a gaming management arrangement between one of the parties and a tribal entity.” Id. at 438 (citation omitted).

“State jurisdiction is preempted by the operation of federal law if it interferes or is incompatible with federal and tribal interests reflected in federal law, unless the state interests at stake are sufficient to justify the assertion of state authority.” Mescalero Apache Tribe, 462 U.S. at 334 ; see Harrah’s Entm’t, 243 F.3d at 437. -9- The history of tribal sovereignty over a subject “serves as a necessary backdrop” to the preemption question.

(See 25 U.S.C. § 2711 ; 25 C.F.R. §§ 502.5 , 502.15; see also Casino Resource Corp. v. Harrah’s Entertainment (8th Cir. 2001) 243 F.3d 435 , 439-440.) Similar observations were made by the court in American Vantage.

(See 25 U.S.C. § 2711 ; 25 C.F.R. §§ 502.5 , 502.15 ; see also Casino Resource Corp. v. Harrah's Entertainment (8th Cir. 2001) 243 F.3d 435 , 439-440.) Similar observations were made by the court in American Vantage .

We must determine whether Congress has clearly manifested an intent to make a cause of action pleaded under state law removable to federal court, see Metropolitan Life, 481 U.S. at 66 , 107 S.Ct. at 1547-48 , mindful that in the ordinary case federal preemption is merely a defense to a plaintiffs lawsuit, see id. at 63 , 107 S.Ct. at 1546." Magee, at 601-02; see also, Casino Resource Corp. v. Harrah's Entertainment, Inc., 243 F.3d 435 , 438 (8th Cir.2001)(reiterating that "C…

We must determine whether Congress has clearly manifested an intent to make a cause of action pleaded under state law removable to federal court, see Metropolitan Life, 481 U.S. at 66 , 107 S.Ct. at 1547-48 , mindful that in the ordinary case federal preemption is merely a *881 defense to a plaintiffs lawsuit, see id. at 63 , 107 S.Ct. at 1546." Magee, at 601-02; see also, Casino Resource Corp. v. Harrah's Entertainment, Inc., 243 F.3d 435 , 438 (8th Cir.2001)(reiterating th…

“State jurisdiction is preempted by the operation of federal law if it interferes *824 or is incompatible with federal and tribal interests reflected in federal law, unless the State interests at stake are sufficient to justify the assertion of State authority.” Mescalero Apache Tribe, 462 U.S. at 334 , 103 S.Ct. 2378 ; see also Casino Resource Corp. v. Harrah’s Entertainment, Inc., 243 F.3d 435 , 437 (8th Cir.2001).