§Why CasetextPricing

PEOPLE v. MIAMI NATION ENTERPRISES

Respondents’ Answer to Petition for Review

15 Cited authorities

  1. Kiowa Tribe of Okla. v. Manufacturing Technologies

    523 U.S. 751 (1998)   Cited 655 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. Washington v. Confederated Tribes

    447 U.S. 134 (1980)   Cited 517 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that tribal sovereignty is "dependent on, and subordinate to" the Federal Government

  3. Allen v. Gold Country Casino

    464 F.3d 1044 (9th Cir. 2006)   Cited 451 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a pro se litigant's pleadings must be “liberally construed”

  4. Breakthrough Mgmt. Grp., Inc. v. Chukchansi Gold Casino & Resort

    629 F.3d 1173 (10th Cir. 2010)   Cited 186 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Holding second factor satisfied where entity is created for the financial benefit of the Tribe

  5. Native American Dist. v. Seneca-Cayuga Tob.

    546 F.3d 1288 (10th Cir. 2008)   Cited 107 times
    Holding that tribal entity was not equitably estopped from asserting immunity because "misrepresentations of the Tribe's officials or employees cannot affect its immunity from suit"

  6. Gavle v. Little Six, Inc.

    555 N.W.2d 284 (Minn. 1996)   Cited 60 times
    Holding state court has jurisdiction to establish Minnesota law on the issue of sovereign immunity for tribal business entities when jurisdiction does not "undermine the authority of the tribal courts" nor "infringe on the ability of Indian tribes to govern themselves"

  7. Cash Advance and Pref. Cash Loans v. State

    242 P.3d 1099 (Colo. 2010)   Cited 32 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Adopting three factors not including financial insulation

  8. Michigan v. Bay Mills Indian Cmty.

    695 F.3d 406 (6th Cir. 2012)   Cited 20 times   1 Legal Analyses

    No. 11–1413. 2012-08-15 State of MICHIGAN and Little Traverse Bay Bands of Odawa Indians, Plaintiffs–Appellees, v. BAY MILLS INDIAN COMMUNITY, Defendant–Appellant. 25 U.S.C. § 2703(4). Here, the plaintiffs allege that the Vanderbilt property is not located within the Bay Mills reservation (which is located 100 miles to the north); that title to the property is not held in trust by the United States; that title is not subject to restriction against alienation by the United States; and that Bay Mills

  9. Trudgeon v. Fantasy Springs Casino

    71 Cal.App.4th 632 (Cal. Ct. App. 1999)   Cited 30 times
    Upholding summary judgment in favor of defendants on the basis of tribal sovereign immunity

  10. Am. Prop. Mgmt. Corp. v. Superior Court of San Diego Cnty.

    206 Cal.App.4th 491 (Cal. Ct. App. 2012)   Cited 12 times
    In American Property Management Corp. v. Superior Court (2012) 206 Cal.App.4th 491, 141 Cal.Rptr.3d 802 (American Property Management), a California limited liability company called U.S. Grant, which was indirectly affiliated with the Sycuan Band of the Kumeyaay Nation, purchased a hotel.

  11. Rule 8.500 - Petition for review

    Cal. R. 8.500   Cited 345 times

    (a)Right to file a petition, answer, or reply (1) A party may file a petition in the Supreme Court for review of any decision of the Court of Appeal, including any interlocutory order, except the denial of a transfer of a case within the appellate jurisdiction of the superior court. (2) A party may file an answer responding to the issues raised in the petition. In the answer, the party may ask the court to address additional issues if it grants review. (3) The petitioner may file a reply to the answer