§Why CasetextPricing

Newman v. Tribal Casino Gaming Enterprise

RESPONSE in Opposition re Objection to Memorandum and Recommendations

7 Cited authorities

  1. Kiowa Tribe of Okla. v. Manufacturing Technologies

    523 U.S. 751 (1998)   Cited 643 times   16 Legal Analyses
    Holding that “an Indian tribe is subject to suit only where Congress has authorized the suit or the tribe has waived its immunity”

  2. Adams v. Bain

    697 F.2d 1213 (4th Cir. 1982)   Cited 2,311 times
    Holding that "where the jurisdictional facts are intertwined with the facts central to the merits of the dispute, . . . the entire factual dispute is appropriately resolved only by a proceeding on the merits" and it is inappropriate to dismiss the case for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction

  3. Cook v. Avi Casino Enters., Inc.

    548 F.3d 718 (9th Cir. 2008)   Cited 197 times
    Holding that a corporation created by a tribe through tribal ordinance and intergovernmental agreement that was wholly owned and managed by the tribe, and from which the benefits flowed to the tribe, enjoyed the tribe's sovereign immunity

  4. Sanderlin v. Seminole Tribe of Florida

    243 F.3d 1282 (11th Cir. 2001)   Cited 147 times
    Holding no waiver by officer when tribal charter reserved sovereign immunity waiver "pursuant to a resolution duly enacted by the Tribal Council"

  5. Williams v. Poarch Band of Creek Indians

    839 F.3d 1312 (11th Cir. 2016)   Cited 45 times

    No. 15-13552 10-18-2016 Christine J. Williams, Plaintiff–Appellant, v. Poarch Band of Creek Indians, Defendant–Appellee Candis A. McGowan, L. William Smith, Robert L. Wiggins, Jr., Wiggins Childs Pantazis Fisher & Goldfarb, Birmingham, AL, for Plaintiff–Appellant. James C. Pennington, Matthew Tae Phillips, Ogletree Deakins Nash Smoak & Stewart, PC, Birmingham, AL, Mark H. Reeves, Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton, LLP, Augusta, GA, for Defendant–Appellee. SMITH, District Judge: Candis A. McGowan, L

  6. Tremblay v. Casino

    599 F. App'x 25 (2d Cir. 2015)   Cited 5 times
    In Tremblay, the court dismissed the plaintiff's Title VII claims because the statute specifically exempted Indian tribes, but dismissed the plaintiff's Age Discrimination in Employment Act ("ADEA") claims even though the ADEA's definition of employer did not exclude Indian tribes.

  7. Section 636 - Jurisdiction, powers, and temporary assignment

    28 U.S.C. § 636   Cited 498,373 times   39 Legal Analyses
    Holding that when a party fails to object to a magistrate judge's report and recommendation, our review of the district court's resulting decision is for plain error so long as the party "has been served with notice that [this consequence] will result from a failure to object"