Tribe immunity in Oklahoma

8 Oklahoma opinions name it 2 courts 1998–2014 0 in the last five years

The cases below were cited by Oklahoma 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.

Followed or applied (11)

Case	Followed	Cited
Kiowa Tribe of Oklahoma v. Manufacturing Technologies, Inc.green scotus · 1998 · cited in 4 Oklahoma opinions naming this issue, 1998–2014 2 sentences 1998These cases are remanded to the District Court of Oklahoma County with instructions to enter judgments for the Tribe under the doctrine of tribal sovereign immunity. ¶ 13 KAUGER, C.J., SUMMERS, V.C.J., LAVENDER, SIMMS, JJ. — concur. ¶ 14 HODGES, J., concurs by reason of stare decisis and concurs in deference to mandate of Kiowa Tribe v. Manufacturing Technologies, Inc., — U.S.-, 118 S.Ct. 1700 , 140 L.Ed.2d 981 (1998). ¶ 15 WATT, J. — concurs by reason of stare decisis. ¶ 16 HARGRAVE, OPALA, JJ. — concur in judgment. ¶ 17 WILSON, J. — dissents and is joined by OPALA, J. . 1998These cases are remanded to the District Court of Oklahoma County with instructions to enter judgments for the Tribe under the doctrine of tribal sovereign immunity. ¶ 13 KAUGER, C.J., SUMMERS, V.C.J., LAVENDER, SIMMS, JJ. — concur. ¶ 14 HODGES, J., concurs by reason of stare decisis and concurs in deference to mandate of Kiowa Tribe v. Manufacturing Technologies, Inc., — U.S.-, 118 S.Ct. 1700 , 140 L.Ed.2d 981 (1998). ¶ 15 WATT, J. — concurs by reason of stare decisis. ¶ 16 HARGRAVE, OPALA, JJ. — concur in judgment. ¶ 17 WILSON, J. — dissents and is joined by OPALA, J. .	3	4
Dilliner v. Seneca-Cayuga Tribegreen okla · 2011 · cited in 4 Oklahoma opinions naming this issue, 2013–2014 2 sentences 2014In this jurisdiction, the rule is settled: if an Indian tribe has specified the manner in which its immunity can be waived, "tribal law controls the way sovereign immunity can be waived by the Tribe." Dilliner v. Seneca-Cayuga Tribe, 2011 OK 61, ¶ 18 , 258 P.3d 516, 520 . 2013The Tribe's Constitution and its ByLaws do not authorize the Chief to waive the Tribe's immunity." Dilliner, 119, 258 P.3d at 520 . .	2	4
Horizons, Inc. v. Keo Leasing Co.green okla · 1984 · cited in 3 Oklahoma opinions naming this issue, 2014–2014 2 sentences 2014"A motion seeking reconsideration, re-examination, rehearing or vacation of a [decision by the court], which is filed within 10 days of the day such decision was rendered, may be regarded as the functional equivalent of a new trial motion, no matter what its title." Horizons, Inc. v. Keo Leasing Co., 1984 OK 24, ¶ 4 , 681 P.2d 757, 759 . 20 . 2014"A motion seeking reconsideration, re-examination, rehearing or vacation of a [decision by the court], which is filed within 10 days of the day such decision was rendered, may be regarded as the functional equivalent of a new trial motion, no matter what its title." Horizons, Inc. v. Keo Leasing Co., 1984 OK 24, ¶ 4 , 681 P.2d 757, 759 . 20 .	2	3
Montana v. Blackfeet Tribe of Indiansgreen scotus · 1985 · cited in 3 Oklahoma opinions naming this issue, 2014–2014 2 sentences 2014Further, we note that "standard principles of statutory construction do not have their usual foree in cases involving Indian law." Montana « Blackfeet Tribe of Indians, 471 U.S. 759, 766 , 105 S.Ct. 2399, 2403 , 85 L.Ed.2d 753 (1985). 121 We also decline to apply state agency law to determine internal tribal matters including the authority of the Business Committee and its members when purporting to waive the Tribe's immunity, in the absence of the Tribe's or the Committee's agreement to do so. 2014Further, we note that "standard principles of statutory construction do not have their usual foree in cases involving Indian law." Montana « Blackfeet Tribe of Indians, 471 U.S. 759, 766 , 105 S.Ct. 2399, 2403 , 85 L.Ed.2d 753 (1985). 121 We also decline to apply state agency law to determine internal tribal matters including the authority of the Business Committee and its members when purporting to waive the Tribe's immunity, in the absence of the Tribe's or the Committee's agreement to do so.	2	3
New Mexico v. Mescalero Apache Tribegreen scotus · 1983 · cited in 3 Oklahoma opinions naming this issue, 2014–2014 2 sentences 2014Finally, we recognize that the "sovereignty retained by tribes includes 'the power of regulating their internal and social relations," including "the power to make their own substantive: law in internal matters." New Mexico v. Mescalero Apache Tribe, 462 U.S. 824, 382 , 103 S.Ct. 2378, 2385 , 76 L.Ed.2d 611 (1983). " 23 Nonetheless, we have not been provided any Apache statutes, ordinances or case law that could be used to derive rules of construction applicable to the Tribe's documents in order to determine whether the Business Committee was delegated authority to waive the Tribe's immunity f 2014Finally, we recognize that the "sovereignty retained by tribes includes 'the power of regulating their internal and social relations," including "the power to make their own substantive: law in internal matters." New Mexico v. Mescalero Apache Tribe, 462 U.S. 824, 382 , 103 S.Ct. 2378, 2385 , 76 L.Ed.2d 611 (1983). " 23 Nonetheless, we have not been provided any Apache statutes, ordinances or case law that could be used to derive rules of construction applicable to the Tribe's documents in order to determine whether the Business Committee was delegated authority to waive the Tribe's immunity f	2	3
MM&A PRODUCTIONS, LLC v. YAVAPAI-APACHE NATIONgreen arizctapp · 2014 · cited in 3 Oklahoma opinions naming this issue, 2014–2014 2 sentences 2014In its Petition for Rehearing, the Tribe argues the appropriate rules of construction are stated in MM&A Productions, LLC v. Yavapai-Apache Nation, 284 Ariz. 1253 60, 316 P.3d 1248 , 1251—52 (Ariz.Ct.App.2014): ... waivers of sovereign immunity are strictly construed in favor of the sovereign. 2014*In its Petition for Rehearing, the Tribe argues the appropriate rules of construction are stated in MM&A Productions, LLC v. Yavapai-Apache Nation, 316 P.3d 1248, 1251-52 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2014): . . . waivers of sovereign immunity are strictly construed in favor of the sovereign .	2	3
Knell v. Burnesgreen okla · 1982 · cited in 2 Oklahoma opinions naming this issue, 2014–2014 2 sentences 2014Knell v. Burnes , 1982 OK 35, ¶ 4, 645 P.2d 471, 473. 2014Knell v. Burnes , 1982 OK 35, ¶ 4, 645 P.2d 471, 473.	2	2
Rush Creek Solutions, Inc. v. Ute Mountain Ute Tribegreen coloctapp · 2004 · cited in 1 Oklahoma opinions naming this issue, 2013–2013 1 sentence 2013Under those facts the court said that "[wJhen, as here, a person has authority to sign an agreement on behalf of a sovereign, it is assumed that the authority extends to a waiver of immunity contained in the agreement." Id. at 408 (emphasis added, citation omitted). €26 Although First Bank discusses parts of Stillaguamish and Rush, it offers no argument about why or how the reasoning in those cases, particularly Rush, 28 applies to the facts before us to demonstrate that the Apache Tribal Council authorized the Mayna-honah Group to waive the Tribe's immunity when the Maynahonah Group sought th	1	1
Native American Distributing v. Seneca-Cayuga Tobacco Co.green ca10 · 2008 · cited in 1 Oklahoma opinions naming this issue, 2011–2011 1 sentence 2011See also Native American Distributing v. Seneca-Cayuga Tobacco Company, 546 F.3d 1288 (10th Cir. 2008). [2] The business committee was made up of: Paul Spicer, Chief; Katie Birdsong, 2nd Chief; Kay Ellison, Secretary/Treasurer; Sharon Winnie-Vann, first councilperson; Mike Jones, second councilperson; Patricia Armstrong, third councilperson; and Dennis Wadsworth, fourth councilperson. [3] Resolution # XX-XXXXXX authorized the Tribe to borrow money from Bank of Oklahoma and was styled: "To Borrow Up to Ten Million Dollars from Bank of Oklahoma." The terms of the contract were spelled out in the	1	1
In Re MSgreen okla · 2010 · cited in 1 Oklahoma opinions naming this issue, 2011–2011 1 sentence 2011Although parental rights termination was not at issue in that case, the Court found "a similarity in the potential for harm to the relationship between an Indian child and the child's tribe if the standard of proof required for 'good cause' not to transfer is inadequate." Id. ¶ 19, 237 P.3d at 167.	1	1
Wilson v. Harlowgreen okla · 1993 · cited in 1 Oklahoma opinions naming this issue, 1998–1998 1 sentence 1998Wilson v. Harlow, 860 P.2d 793, 797 (Okla.1993). [17] Hoover I, 909 P.2d at 62 . [18] Because we are not satisfied that our former decision constitutes gross or manifest injustice, the exception to the "settled law of the case" doctrine is not operative.	1	1

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

Case	Negative	Cited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Oklahoma. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (4)

Case	Cited	Years
Seminole Tribe of Florida v. Florida green scotus · 1996 2 sentences 1998Seminole Tribe of Florida v. Florida, 517 U.S. 44 , 116 S.Ct. 1114 , 134 L.Ed.2d 252 (1996). [15] We recognize the Tribe's immunity defense arises under federal law, National Farmers Union Insurance Cos. v. Crow Tribe of Indians, 471 U.S. 845 , 105 S.Ct. 2447 , 85 L.Ed.2d 818 (1985), but Hoover has no federal claim. [16] Fundamental jurisdictional issues will be considered at any time. 1998Seminole Tribe of Florida v. Florida, 517 U.S. 44 , 116 S.Ct. 1114 , 134 L.Ed.2d 252 (1996). [15] We recognize the Tribe's immunity defense arises under federal law, National Farmers Union Insurance Cos. v. Crow Tribe of Indians, 471 U.S. 845 , 105 S.Ct. 2447 , 85 L.Ed.2d 818 (1985), but Hoover has no federal claim. [16] Fundamental jurisdictional issues will be considered at any time.	1	1998–1998
Hoover v. Kiowa Tribe of Oklahoma red okla · 1995 1 sentence 1998Wilson v. Harlow, 860 P.2d 793, 797 (Okla.1993). [17] Hoover I, 909 P.2d at 62 . [18] Because we are not satisfied that our former decision constitutes gross or manifest injustice, the exception to the "settled law of the case" doctrine is not operative.	1	1998–1998
Lewis v. Sac & Fox Tribe of Oklahoma Housing Authority green okla · 1994 2 sentences 1998Only that litigation which is explicitly withdrawn by Congress or that which infringes upon tribal self-government stands outside the boundaries of permissible state-court cognizance.” Lewis, 896 P.2d at 508 , footnote omitted. 1998Only that litigation which is explicitly withdrawn by Congress or that which infringes upon tribal self-government stands outside the boundaries of permissible state-court cognizance." Lewis, 896 P.2d at 508 , footnote omitted.	1	1998–1998
National Farmers Union Insurance v. Crow Tribe of Indians green scotus · 1985 2 sentences 1998Seminole Tribe of Florida v. Florida, 517 U.S. 44 , 116 S.Ct. 1114 , 134 L.Ed.2d 252 (1996). [15] We recognize the Tribe's immunity defense arises under federal law, National Farmers Union Insurance Cos. v. Crow Tribe of Indians, 471 U.S. 845 , 105 S.Ct. 2447 , 85 L.Ed.2d 818 (1985), but Hoover has no federal claim. [16] Fundamental jurisdictional issues will be considered at any time. 1998Seminole Tribe of Florida v. Florida, 517 U.S. 44 , 116 S.Ct. 1114 , 134 L.Ed.2d 252 (1996). [15] We recognize the Tribe's immunity defense arises under federal law, National Farmers Union Insurance Cos. v. Crow Tribe of Indians, 471 U.S. 845 , 105 S.Ct. 2447 , 85 L.Ed.2d 818 (1985), but Hoover has no federal claim. [16] Fundamental jurisdictional issues will be considered at any time.	1	1998–1998

Where else courts name it

CA 14 (1985–2026) WA 11 (2007–2024) OK 8 (1998–2014) FL 6 (1991–2017) AZ 5 (2008–2023) CO 3 (2004–2011) IA 3 (2009–2026) SD 3 (1993–2005) AK 3 (1988–2014) MT 3 (1978–1998) RI 2 (2002–2015) WY 2 (1998–2023) LA 2 (2004–2009)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check