Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
6 Alaska opinions name it 1 courts 1977–2024 1 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Alaska 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 |
|---|---|---|
Atkinson v. Haldanegreen2 sentences2017Id. at 2031 (quoting Kiowa, 523 U.S. at 756 , 118 S.Ct. 1700 ); see also Atkinson v. Haldane, 569 P.2d 151, 163 (Alaska 1977) ("Because of the supremacy of federal law, we are bound to recognize 'the doctrine of tribal sovereign immunity....”). 11 . 2017Id. at 2031 (quoting Kiowa, 523 U.S. at 756 , 118 S.Ct. 1700 ); see also Atkinson v. Haldane, 569 P.2d 151, 163 (Alaska 1977) ("Because of the supremacy of federal law, we are bound to recognize 'the doctrine of tribal sovereign immunity....”). 11 . | 1 | 3 |
Breakthrough Management Group, Inc. v. Chukchansi Gold Casino & Resortgreen1 sentence2024Inc. v. Chukchansi Gold Casino & Resort, 629 F.3d 1173, 1187 (10th Cir. 2010))). 6 84 P.3d 437 (Alaska 2004). -5- 7695 STANDARD OF REVIEW We review de novo “issues of sovereign immunity” and dismissals “for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.” 7 In doing so “we will adopt the rule of law that is most persuasive in light of precedent, reason, and policy.” 8 DISCUSSION This case requires us to review the doctrine of tribal sovereign immunity and how it applies to legal entities that, while formally distinct from tribes, nonetheless function as arms of tribes. | 1 | 1 |
Lula Williams v. Big Picture Loans, LLCgreen2 sentences2024Like the federal circuit courts, most have rejected formal financial 58 929 F.3d 170, 177 (4th Cir. 2019). 59 Id. (citing White, 765 F.3d at 1026 ). 60 Id. 61 Id. at 174. 62 Id. at 174-75. 63 Id. at 177. 64 Id. at 177-85. - 15 - 7695 insulation as a dispositive factor.65 New York is the sole outlier; in 2014 the New York Court of Appeals reaffirmed the real-party-in-interest test that we adopted in Runyon.66 In 2016 the California Supreme Court adopted the first five Breakthrough factors, determining that they “properly account for the understanding that tribal immunity is both ‘an inherent pa 2024Like the federal circuit courts, most have rejected formal financial 58 929 F.3d 170, 177 (4th Cir. 2019). 59 Id. (citing White, 765 F.3d at 1026 ). 60 Id. 61 Id. at 174. 62 Id. at 174-75. 63 Id. at 177. 64 Id. at 177-85. - 15 - 7695 insulation as a dispositive factor.65 New York is the sole outlier; in 2014 the New York Court of Appeals reaffirmed the real-party-in-interest test that we adopted in Runyon.66 In 2016 the California Supreme Court adopted the first five Breakthrough factors, determining that they “properly account for the understanding that tribal immunity is both ‘an inherent pa | 1 | 1 |
Timothy White v. University of Californiagreen2 sentences2024See id. at 1018, 1025-26 . - 14 - 7695 In 2019 the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals examined arm-of-the-tribe immunity in Williams v. Big Picture Loans, LLC and, like the Ninth Circuit, adopted the first five Breakthrough factors. 58 It also interpreted the Ninth Circuit’s decision in White as implicitly adopting the sixth Breakthrough factor because the decision “considers the central purposes underlying the doctrine of tribal sovereign immunity.”59 The court explained that the sixth factor “overlaps significantly with the first five” and “is too important to constitute a single factor.”60 Wil 2024Like the federal circuit courts, most have rejected formal financial 58 929 F.3d 170, 177 (4th Cir. 2019). 59 Id. (citing White, 765 F.3d at 1026 ). 60 Id. 61 Id. at 174. 62 Id. at 174-75. 63 Id. at 177. 64 Id. at 177-85. - 15 - 7695 insulation as a dispositive factor.65 New York is the sole outlier; in 2014 the New York Court of Appeals reaffirmed the real-party-in-interest test that we adopted in Runyon.66 In 2016 the California Supreme Court adopted the first five Breakthrough factors, determining that they “properly account for the understanding that tribal immunity is both ‘an inherent pa | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Alaska. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Native Village of Stevens v. Alaska Management & Planning
green
2 sentences1992We stated: "In our view, the mere approval of a section 16 constitution ... by the Secretary of the Interior ... does not suffice to afford ... tribal status for the purpose of application of the doctrine of tribal sovereign immunity." Stevens Village, 757 P.2d at 40 . 1992We stated: "In our view, the mere approval of a section 16 constitution ... by the Secretary of the Interior ... does not suffice to afford ... tribal status for the purpose of application of the doctrine of tribal sovereign immunity." Stevens Village, 757 P.2d at 40 . | 2 | 1992–1992 |
Runyon Ex Rel. BR v. AVCP
green
1 sentence2024Inc. v. Chukchansi Gold Casino & Resort, 629 F.3d 1173, 1187 (10th Cir. 2010))). 6 84 P.3d 437 (Alaska 2004). -5- 7695 STANDARD OF REVIEW We review de novo “issues of sovereign immunity” and dismissals “for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.” 7 In doing so “we will adopt the rule of law that is most persuasive in light of precedent, reason, and policy.” 8 DISCUSSION This case requires us to review the doctrine of tribal sovereign immunity and how it applies to legal entities that, while formally distinct from tribes, nonetheless function as arms of tribes. | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Kiowa Tribe of Oklahoma v. Manufacturing Technologies, Inc.
green
2 sentences2017Id. at 2031 (quoting Kiowa, 523 U.S. at 756 , 118 S.Ct. 1700 ); see also Atkinson v. Haldane, 569 P.2d 151, 163 (Alaska 1977) ("Because of the supremacy of federal law, we are bound to recognize 'the doctrine of tribal sovereign immunity....”). 11 . 2017Id. at 2031 (quoting Kiowa, 523 U.S. at 756 , 118 S.Ct. 1700 ); see also Atkinson v. Haldane, 569 P.2d 151, 163 (Alaska 1977) ("Because of the supremacy of federal law, we are bound to recognize 'the doctrine of tribal sovereign immunity....”). 11 . | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Oklahoma Tax Comm'n v. Citizen Band of Potawatomi Tribe of Okla.
green
2 sentences1992Oklahoma Tax Comm'n v. Citizen Band of Potawatomi Indian Tribe, ___ U.S. ___, 111 S.Ct. 905 , 112 L.Ed.2d 1112 (1991). 1992Oklahoma Tax Comm'n v. Citizen Band of Potawatomi Indian Tribe, ___ U.S. ___, 111 S.Ct. 905 , 112 L.Ed.2d 1112 (1991). | 1 | 1992–1992 |
Puyallup Tribe, Inc. v. Department of Game of Washington
green
2 sentences1977Yet, since the government recognized the Band as a "tribe," the court ruled in favor of sovereign immunity. [32] The doctrine of tribal sovereign immunity was most recently reaffirmed by the United States Supreme Court in Puyallup Tribe, Inc. v. Department of Game, ___ U.S. ___, 97 S.Ct. 2616 , 53 L.Ed.2d 667 (June 23, 1977). 1977Yet, since the government recognized the Band as a "tribe," the court ruled in favor of sovereign immunity. [32] The doctrine of tribal sovereign immunity was most recently reaffirmed by the United States Supreme Court in Puyallup Tribe, Inc. v. Department of Game, ___ U.S. ___, 97 S.Ct. 2616 , 53 L.Ed.2d 667 (June 23, 1977). | 1 | 1977–1977 |
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.