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 New Mexico opinions name it 2 courts 2002–2013 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.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Gallegos v. Pueblo of Tesuquegreen2 sentences2013See 11 Gallegos v. Pueblo of Tesuque, 2002-NMSC-012, ¶ 7 , 132 N.M. 207 , 46 P.3d 668 12 (“Without an unequivocal and express waiver of sovereign immunity or congressional 13 authorization, state courts lack the power to entertain lawsuits against tribal entities.”); 14 Armijo v. Pueblo of Laguna, 2011-NMCA-006, ¶ 12 , 149 N.M. 234 , 247 P.3d 1119 15 (“The locus of the Pueblo’s activity does not determine the applicability of tribal 16 sovereign immunity.”); Hoffman v. Sandia Resort & Casino, 2010-NMCA-034, ¶ 12 , 17 148 N.M. 222 , 232 P.3d 901 (“Corporate entities under tribal control are ext 2013See 11 Gallegos v. Pueblo of Tesuque, 2002-NMSC-012, ¶ 7 , 132 N.M. 207 , 46 P.3d 668 12 (“Without an unequivocal and express waiver of sovereign immunity or congressional 13 authorization, state courts lack the power to entertain lawsuits against tribal entities.”); 14 Armijo v. Pueblo of Laguna, 2011-NMCA-006, ¶ 12 , 149 N.M. 234 , 247 P.3d 1119 15 (“The locus of the Pueblo’s activity does not determine the applicability of tribal 16 sovereign immunity.”); Hoffman v. Sandia Resort & Casino, 2010-NMCA-034, ¶ 12 , 17 148 N.M. 222 , 232 P.3d 901 (“Corporate entities under tribal control are ext | 2 | 2 |
Puyallup Tribe, Inc. v. Department of Game of Washingtongreen2 sentences2005See Gallegos v. Pueblo of Tesuque, 2002-NMSC-012, ¶ 7 , 132 N.M. 207 , 46 P.3d 668 (“Without an unequivocal and express waiver of sovereign immunity or congressional authorization, state courts lack the power to entertain lawsuits against tribal entities.”); see also Puyallup Tribe, Inc. v. Dep’t of Game, 433 U.S. 165, 172 , 97 S.Ct. 2616 , 53 L.Ed.2d 667 (1977) (“Absent an effective waiver or consent, it is settled that a state court may not exercise jurisdiction over a recognized Indian tribe”). {12} As explained above, the Pueblo in this case did decide to waive its sovereign immunity under 2005See Gallegos v. Pueblo of Tesuque, 2002-NMSC-012, ¶ 7 , 132 N.M. 207 , 46 P.3d 668 (“Without an unequivocal and express waiver of sovereign immunity or congressional authorization, state courts lack the power to entertain lawsuits against tribal entities.”); see also Puyallup Tribe, Inc. v. Dep’t of Game, 433 U.S. 165, 172 , 97 S.Ct. 2616 , 53 L.Ed.2d 667 (1977) (“Absent an effective waiver or consent, it is settled that a state court may not exercise jurisdiction over a recognized Indian tribe”). {12} As explained above, the Pueblo in this case did decide to waive its sovereign immunity under | 2 | 2 |
Armijo v. PUEBLO OF LAGUNAgreen2 sentences2013See 11 Gallegos v. Pueblo of Tesuque, 2002-NMSC-012, ¶ 7 , 132 N.M. 207 , 46 P.3d 668 12 (“Without an unequivocal and express waiver of sovereign immunity or congressional 13 authorization, state courts lack the power to entertain lawsuits against tribal entities.”); 14 Armijo v. Pueblo of Laguna, 2011-NMCA-006, ¶ 12 , 149 N.M. 234 , 247 P.3d 1119 15 (“The locus of the Pueblo’s activity does not determine the applicability of tribal 16 sovereign immunity.”); Hoffman v. Sandia Resort & Casino, 2010-NMCA-034, ¶ 12 , 17 148 N.M. 222 , 232 P.3d 901 (“Corporate entities under tribal control are ext 2013See 11 Gallegos v. Pueblo of Tesuque, 2002-NMSC-012, ¶ 7 , 132 N.M. 207 , 46 P.3d 668 12 (“Without an unequivocal and express waiver of sovereign immunity or congressional 13 authorization, state courts lack the power to entertain lawsuits against tribal entities.”); 14 Armijo v. Pueblo of Laguna, 2011-NMCA-006, ¶ 12 , 149 N.M. 234 , 247 P.3d 1119 15 (“The locus of the Pueblo’s activity does not determine the applicability of tribal 16 sovereign immunity.”); Hoffman v. Sandia Resort & Casino, 2010-NMCA-034, ¶ 12 , 17 148 N.M. 222 , 232 P.3d 901 (“Corporate entities under tribal control are ext | 1 | 1 |
Brenneman v. Board of Regents of the Universitygreen2 sentences2009See Brenneman v. Bd. of Regents of Univ. of N.M., 2004-NMCA-003, ¶¶ 6-8 , 135 N.M. 68 , 84 P.3d 685 (2003). 2009See Brenneman v. Bd. of Regents of Univ. of N.M., 2004-NMCA-003, ¶¶ 6-8 , 135 N.M. 68 , 84 P.3d 685 (2003). | 1 | 1 |
Santa Clara Pueblo v. Martinezgreen2 sentences2002See Santa Clara Pueblo v. Martinez, 436 U.S. 49, 58 , 98 S.Ct. 1670 , 56 L.Ed.2d 106 (1978); see also Srader, 1998-NMSC-025, ¶29 , 125 N.M. 521 , 964 P.2d 82 . 2002See Santa Clara Pueblo v. Martinez, 436 U.S. 49, 58 , 98 S.Ct. 1670 , 56 L.Ed.2d 106 (1978); see also Srader, 1998-NMSC-025, ¶29 , 125 N.M. 521 , 964 P.2d 82 . | 1 | 1 |
Srader v. Verantgreen2 sentences2002See Santa Clara Pueblo v. Martinez, 436 U.S. 49, 58 , 98 S.Ct. 1670 , 56 L.Ed.2d 106 (1978); see also Srader, 1998-NMSC-025, ¶29 , 125 N.M. 521 , 964 P.2d 82 . 2002See Santa Clara Pueblo v. Martinez, 436 U.S. 49, 58 , 98 S.Ct. 1670 , 56 L.Ed.2d 106 (1978); see also Srader, 1998-NMSC-025, ¶29 , 125 N.M. 521 , 964 P.2d 82 . | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in New Mexico. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Hoffman v. Sandia Resort and Casino
green
2 sentences2013See 11 Gallegos v. Pueblo of Tesuque, 2002-NMSC-012, ¶ 7 , 132 N.M. 207 , 46 P.3d 668 12 (“Without an unequivocal and express waiver of sovereign immunity or congressional 13 authorization, state courts lack the power to entertain lawsuits against tribal entities.”); 14 Armijo v. Pueblo of Laguna, 2011-NMCA-006, ¶ 12 , 149 N.M. 234 , 247 P.3d 1119 15 (“The locus of the Pueblo’s activity does not determine the applicability of tribal 16 sovereign immunity.”); Hoffman v. Sandia Resort & Casino, 2010-NMCA-034, ¶ 12 , 17 148 N.M. 222 , 232 P.3d 901 (“Corporate entities under tribal control are ext 2013See 11 Gallegos v. Pueblo of Tesuque, 2002-NMSC-012, ¶ 7 , 132 N.M. 207 , 46 P.3d 668 12 (“Without an unequivocal and express waiver of sovereign immunity or congressional 13 authorization, state courts lack the power to entertain lawsuits against tribal entities.”); 14 Armijo v. Pueblo of Laguna, 2011-NMCA-006, ¶ 12 , 149 N.M. 234 , 247 P.3d 1119 15 (“The locus of the Pueblo’s activity does not determine the applicability of tribal 16 sovereign immunity.”); Hoffman v. Sandia Resort & Casino, 2010-NMCA-034, ¶ 12 , 17 148 N.M. 222 , 232 P.3d 901 (“Corporate entities under tribal control are ext | 1 | 2013–2013 |
Sanchez v. Santa Ana Golf Club, Inc.
green
2 sentences2013See 11 Gallegos v. Pueblo of Tesuque, 2002-NMSC-012, ¶ 7 , 132 N.M. 207 , 46 P.3d 668 12 (“Without an unequivocal and express waiver of sovereign immunity or congressional 13 authorization, state courts lack the power to entertain lawsuits against tribal entities.”); 14 Armijo v. Pueblo of Laguna, 2011-NMCA-006, ¶ 12 , 149 N.M. 234 , 247 P.3d 1119 15 (“The locus of the Pueblo’s activity does not determine the applicability of tribal 16 sovereign immunity.”); Hoffman v. Sandia Resort & Casino, 2010-NMCA-034, ¶ 12 , 17 148 N.M. 222 , 232 P.3d 901 (“Corporate entities under tribal control are ext 2013See 11 Gallegos v. Pueblo of Tesuque, 2002-NMSC-012, ¶ 7 , 132 N.M. 207 , 46 P.3d 668 12 (“Without an unequivocal and express waiver of sovereign immunity or congressional 13 authorization, state courts lack the power to entertain lawsuits against tribal entities.”); 14 Armijo v. Pueblo of Laguna, 2011-NMCA-006, ¶ 12 , 149 N.M. 234 , 247 P.3d 1119 15 (“The locus of the Pueblo’s activity does not determine the applicability of tribal 16 sovereign immunity.”); Hoffman v. Sandia Resort & Casino, 2010-NMCA-034, ¶ 12 , 17 148 N.M. 222 , 232 P.3d 901 (“Corporate entities under tribal control are ext | 1 | 2013–2013 |
DeFeo v. Ski Apache Resort
green
2 sentences2010Worker rests his arguments primarily on DeFeo v. Ski Apache Resort, 120 N.M. 640 , 904 P.2d 1065 (Ct.App.1995). 2010Worker rests his arguments primarily on DeFeo v. Ski Apache Resort, 120 N.M. 640 , 904 P.2d 1065 (Ct.App.1995). | 1 | 2010–2010 |
R & R DELI, INC. v. Santa Ana Star Casino
green
2 sentences2010(Without an unequivocal and express waiver of sovereign immunity or congressional authorization, state courts lack the power to entertain lawsuits against tribal entities.) R & R Deli, Inc. v. Santa Ana Star Casino, 2006-NMCA-020, ¶¶ 10-11 , 139 N.M. 85 , 128 P.3d 513 (filed 2005) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). {6} We begin by addressing Worker’s contentions that because he was injured off the reservation and the Tribe was engaged in business in the state of New Mexico, the WCA has jurisdiction over his claim. 2010(Without an unequivocal and express waiver of sovereign immunity or congressional authorization, state courts lack the power to entertain lawsuits against tribal entities.) R & R Deli, Inc. v. Santa Ana Star Casino, 2006-NMCA-020, ¶¶ 10-11 , 139 N.M. 85 , 128 P.3d 513 (filed 2005) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). {6} We begin by addressing Worker’s contentions that because he was injured off the reservation and the Tribe was engaged in business in the state of New Mexico, the WCA has jurisdiction over his claim. | 1 | 2010–2010 |
Kiowa Tribe of Oklahoma v. Manufacturing Technologies, Inc.
green
1 sentence2004Id. at 757, 118 S.Ct. 1700 . {6} Other entities under tribal control are extended the same sovereign immunity as the tribe itself. | 1 | 2004–2004 |
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.