Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.

Holding that summary judgment is not appropriate if "the dispute about a material fact is ‘genuine,’ that is, if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party"

Celotex Corp. v. Catrett

Holding that a movant's summary judgment motion should be granted "against a [nonmovant] who fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to that party's case, and on which that party will bear the burden of proof at trial"

Scott v. Harris

Holding that it is at least sometimes reasonable for an officer to intentionally collide with a suspect's vehicle during a pursuit

Seminole Tribe of Fla. v. Florida

Holding that Congress cannot abrogate state-sovereign immunity under its Article I commerce power, and rejecting the result in Pennsylvania v. Union Gas Co. , 491 U.S. 1, 109 S.Ct. 2273, 105 L.Ed.2d 1, seven years later; the decision in Union Gas never garnered a majority

Mich. v. Bay Mills Indian Cmty.

Holding that tribal immunity extends to "suits arising from a tribe’s commercial activities, even when they take place off Indian lands"

California v. Cabazon Band of Mission Indians

Holding that state could not regulate high stakes bingo and poker games operated by tribes on reservation land

Montana v. Blackfeet Tribe

Holding that "statutes are to be construed liberally in favor of the Indians, with ambiguous provisions interpreted to their benefit"

Yakima v. Confederated Tribes

Holding that county could not enforce its excise tax on sales of reservation land

J.I. Case Co. v. Labor Board

Holding that the result of a collective bargaining agreement is not "a contract of employment except in rare cases; no one has a job by reason of it and no obligation to any individual ordinarily comes into existence from it alone"

Spirides v. Reinhardt

Holding "no one factor is determinative" of whether individual is employee or independent contractor for purposes of Title VII

Rule 56 - Summary Judgment

Holding a party may move for summary judgment on any part of any claim or defense in the lawsuit

Section 2701 - Findings

Finding that “[f]ederal courts have held that section 81 of this title requires Secretarial review of management contracts dealing with Indian gaming, but does not provide standards for approval of such contracts”

Section 2710 - Tribal gaming ordinances

Providing "[n]et revenues . . . may be used to make per capita payments . . . only if" the tribe has already prepared a plan to meet its government essential services

Section 2703 - Definitions

Defining "class III gaming"

Section 2702 - Declaration of policy

Explaining that Congress' purpose in enacting IGRA was "to provide a statutory basis for the operation of gaming by Indian tribes as a means of promoting tribal economic development, self-sufficiency, and strong tribal governments"

Section 1166 - Gambling in Indian country

In § 1166(a), Congress did not intend to create an implied right of action that would give states the right to sue to enjoin class III gambling even if such gambling was a nuisance that could be enjoined under state law.

Section 1389 - Agreement on detainers

Section 2711 - Management contracts

Authorizing tribal suit to compel Chairman of NIGC either to approve or to disapprove management contract

Section 19

Notwithstanding subdivision (e), "slot machines, lottery games, and banking and percentage card games are hereby permitted to be conducted and operated on tribal lands. . . ."

Section 1175 - Specific jurisdictions within which manufacturing, repairing, selling, possessing, etc., prohibited; exceptions

Prohibiting use of gambling devices on federal and Indian lands