11 Washington opinions name it 2 courts 2007–2024 3 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Washington courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Republic of Philippines v. Pimentelgreen2 sentences2017Proceeding without regard to the Tribe's defense, the majority gives "insufficient weight" to the sovereign status of the Tribe and erroneously "reach[es] and discount[s] the merits of [the Tribe's] claims." Republic ofPhilippines v. Pimentel, 553 U.S. 851, 855,864 , 128 S. Ct. 2180 , 171 L. 2017Proceeding without regard to the Tribe's defense, the majority gives "insufficient weight" to the sovereign status of the Tribe and erroneously "reach[es] and discount[s] the merits of [the Tribe's] claims." Republic ofPhilippines v. Pimentel, 553 U.S. 851, 855,864 , 128 S. Ct. 2180 , 171 L. | 3 | 3 |
Cass County Joint Water Resource District v. 1.43 Acres of Land in Highland Townshipgreen2 sentences2024For instance, in Cass County Joint Water Resource District v. 1.43 Acres of Land in Highland Township, a landowner in an area affected by a forthcoming public works project deeded land to the Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa Indians, who subsequently claimed immunity against condemnation. 643 N.W.2d 685, 688 (N.D. 2002). 2024For instance, in Cass County Joint Water Resource District v. 1.43 Acres of Land in Highland Township, a landowner in an area affected by a forthcoming public works project deeded land to the Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa Indians, who subsequently claimed immunity against condemnation. 643 N.W.2d 685, 688 (N.D. 2002). | 2 | 2 |
Berge v. Gortongreen2 sentences2009See Berge v. Gorton, 88 Wn.2d 756, 759 , 567 P.2d 187 (1977) (“Factual allegations of the complaint must be accepted as true for purposes” of reviewing a ruling on a motion to dismiss.). 2009See Berge v. Gorton, 88 Wn.2d 756, 759 , 567 P.2d 187 (1977) (“Factual allegations of the complaint must be accepted as true for purposes” of reviewing a ruling on a motion to dismiss.). | 2 | 2 |
Mark S. Allen v. Gold Country Casino the Berry Creek Rancheria of Tyme Maidu Indians Mattie Mayhewgreen1 sentence2023Allen, 464 F.3d at 1047 (internal citation omitted). -11- No. 84628-1-I/12 The Tribe also uses the golf course to promote the health of its members and enhance Tribal youth programs. | 1 | 1 |
Sackett v. Santilligreen1 sentence2008II, § 1; Sackett v. Santilli, 146 Wash.2d 498, 504 , 47 P.3d 948 (2002) ("[T]he Legislature is prohibited from delegating its purely legislative functions.") (citations omitted). [3] Mudarri's brief simply asserts, without elaboration: "The Governor negotiated special tax treatment in favor of the tribe in violation of Washington Constitution article VII § 1." Br. of Appellant at 36, citing Clerk's Papers (CP) 431-35. [4] Mudarri does not specify whether he bases his equal protection claim on the federal or the state Constitution. | 1 | 1 |
Sackett v. Santilligreen1 sentence2008II, § 1; Sackett v. Santilli, 146 Wash.2d 498, 504 , 47 P.3d 948 (2002) ("[T]he Legislature is prohibited from delegating its purely legislative functions.") (citations omitted). [3] Mudarri's brief simply asserts, without elaboration: "The Governor negotiated special tax treatment in favor of the tribe in violation of Washington Constitution article VII § 1." Br. of Appellant at 36, citing Clerk's Papers (CP) 431-35. [4] Mudarri does not specify whether he bases his equal protection claim on the federal or the state Constitution. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Washington. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
United States v. Crosby
green
2 sentences2024B Flying T concedes the Tribe has immunity, but argues its immunity does not extend to Flying T’s claims to quiet title, because, Flying T says, its suit is “outside the scope of the common law immunity.” Flying T argues that under the immovable property exception, “a sovereign who purchases property in the territory of another sovereign does so in the character of a private party and enjoys no immunity from 9 No. 85739-8-I/10 suit in actions regarding rights of possession or title to the property.” But none of Flying T’s arguments establish that an immovable property exception has ever existe 2024B Flying T concedes the Tribe has immunity, but argues its immunity does not extend to Flying T’s claims to quiet title, because, Flying T says, its suit is “outside the scope of the common law immunity.” Flying T argues that under the immovable property exception, “a sovereign who purchases property in the territory of another sovereign does so in the character of a private party and enjoys no immunity from 9 No. 85739-8-I/10 suit in actions regarding rights of possession or title to the property.” But none of Flying T’s arguments establish that an immovable property exception has ever existe | 2 | 2024–2024 |
Schooner Exchange v. McFaddon
green
2 sentences2024B Flying T concedes the Tribe has immunity, but argues its immunity does not extend to Flying T’s claims to quiet title, because, Flying T says, its suit is “outside the scope of the common law immunity.” Flying T argues that under the immovable property exception, “a sovereign who purchases property in the territory of another sovereign does so in the character of a private party and enjoys no immunity from 9 No. 85739-8-I/10 suit in actions regarding rights of possession or title to the property.” But none of Flying T’s arguments establish that an immovable property exception has ever existe 2024B Flying T concedes the Tribe has immunity, but argues its immunity does not extend to Flying T’s claims to quiet title, because, Flying T says, its suit is “outside the scope of the common law immunity.” Flying T argues that under the immovable property exception, “a sovereign who purchases property in the territory of another sovereign does so in the character of a private party and enjoys no immunity from 9 No. 85739-8-I/10 suit in actions regarding rights of possession or title to the property.” But none of Flying T’s arguments establish that an immovable property exception has ever existe | 2 | 2024–2024 |
PennEast Pipeline Co. v. New Jersey
green
2 sentences2024Second, the Tribe’s claim of immunity is subject to abrogation domestically by Congress, so it poses no threat to the properly defined dual sovereignty governing this land. “[W]hen the States entered the federal system, they renounced their right to the ‘highest dominion in the lands comprised within their limits.’ ” PennEast Pipeline Co., LLC v. New Jersey, 594 U.S. 482, 502 , 141 S. Ct. 2244 , 210 L. 2024Second, the Tribe’s claim of immunity is subject to abrogation domestically by Congress, so it poses no threat to the properly defined dual sovereignty governing this land. “[W]hen the States entered the federal system, they renounced their right to the ‘highest dominion in the lands comprised within their limits.’ ” PennEast Pipeline Co., LLC v. New Jersey, 594 U.S. 482, 502 , 141 S. Ct. 2244 , 210 L. | 2 | 2024–2024 |
Wagnon v. Prairie Band Potawatomi Nation
green
2 sentences2007He states that “[w]here joint control is shared by agreement, a tribe has no immunity,” but again does not offer legal authority to support that statement. 2 Appellant’s Reply Br. at 2. ¶13 Matheson relies on a recent United States Supreme Court case, Wagnon v. Prairie Band Potawatomi Nation, 546 U.S. 95 , 126 S. Ct. 676 , 163 L. 2007He states that “[w]here joint control is shared by agreement, a tribe has no immunity,” but again does not offer legal authority to support that statement. 2 Appellant’s Reply Br. at 2. ¶13 Matheson relies on a recent United States Supreme Court case, Wagnon v. Prairie Band Potawatomi Nation, 546 U.S. 95 , 126 S. Ct. 676 , 163 L. | 2 | 2007–2007 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.