tribe has waived immunity (New Mexico) · Go Syfert
← New Mexico issues

tribe has waived immunity in New Mexico

6 New Mexico opinions name it 2 courts 2002–2020 0 in the last five years

The cases below were cited by New Mexico 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 (1)

CaseFollowedCited
Kiowa Tribe of Oklahoma v. Manufacturing Technologies, Inc.green
scotus · 1998 · cited in 6 New Mexico opinions naming this issue, 2002–2020
2 sentences

2020See also Kiowa Tribe, 523 U.S. at 754 (“As a matter of federal law, an Indian tribe is subject to suit only where Congress has authorized the suit or the tribe has waived its immunity.”).

2010The law regarding sovereign immunity remains as set forth in Kiowa — “an Indian Tribe is subject to suit only where Congress has authorized the suit or the tribe has waived its immunity.” Kiowa, 523 U.S. at 754 , 118 S.Ct. 1700 . {21} Armijo next claims that Padilla v. Pueblo of Acoma, 107 N.M. 174 , 754 P.2d 845 (1988), controls whether the Pueblo may assert sovereign immunity in the present case.

46

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

CaseNegativeCited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in New Mexico. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (2)

CaseCitedYears
Padilla v. Pueblo of Acoma green
nm · 1988
2 sentences

2010The law regarding sovereign immunity remains as set forth in Kiowa — “an Indian Tribe is subject to suit only where Congress has authorized the suit or the tribe has waived its immunity.” Kiowa, 523 U.S. at 754 , 118 S.Ct. 1700 . {21} Armijo next claims that Padilla v. Pueblo of Acoma, 107 N.M. 174 , 754 P.2d 845 (1988), controls whether the Pueblo may assert sovereign immunity in the present case.

2010The law regarding sovereign immunity remains as set forth in Kiowa — “an Indian Tribe is subject to suit only where Congress has authorized the suit or the tribe has waived its immunity.” Kiowa, 523 U.S. at 754 , 118 S.Ct. 1700 . {21} Armijo next claims that Padilla v. Pueblo of Acoma, 107 N.M. 174 , 754 P.2d 845 (1988), controls whether the Pueblo may assert sovereign immunity in the present case.

12010–2010
Santa Clara Pueblo v. Martinez green
scotus · 1978
2 sentences

2002As we recognize that waivers of tribal immunity must be unequivocal and express, Santa Clara Pueblo, 436 U.S. at 58 , 98 S.Ct. 1670 it is therefore imperative that the party asserting equitable estoppel against a tribe allege at a minimum the requisite elements of that claim.

2002As we recognize that waivers of tribal immunity must be unequivocal and express, Santa Clara Pueblo, 436 U.S. at 58 , 98 S.Ct. 1670 it is therefore imperative that the party asserting equitable estoppel against a tribe allege at a minimum the requisite elements of that claim.

12002–2002

Statutes the citing opinions construe

NM § N.M. Stat. § 42-6-1 (3) NM § N.M. Stat. § 67-1-1 (3) NM § N.M. Stat. § 67-2-1 (3) NM § N.M. Stat. § 67-3-11 (3) NM § N.M. Stat. § 67-3-12 (3) USC § 25u.s.c.1301-1303 (3) USC § 28u.s.c.1360 (3) USC § 28u.s.c.2409 (3) USC § 43u.s.c.932 (3)

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.

Where else courts name it

CA 22 (1999–2024) OK 15 (2000–2022) NM 6 (2002–2020) CT 5 (2000–2005) FL 4 (2002–2023) NY 4 (2013–2014) MA 3 (2004–2007) WA 3 (2005–2025) WI 2 (2004–2012) LA 2 (2004–2008)

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