36 Cited authorities

Kiowa Tribe of Okla. v. Manufacturing Technologies
523 U.S. 751 (1998) Cited 652 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”
Carcieri v. Salazar
555 U.S. 379 (2009) Cited 292 times 7 Legal Analyses
Holding that a list following "shall include" was exhaustive where Congress "defined the term by including only three discrete definitions"
Minnesota v. United States
305 U.S. 382 (1939) Cited 480 times
Holding that "[t]he fact that the removal was effected on petition of the United States and the stipulation of its attorney in relation thereto are facts without legal significance"
Gaming Corporation v. Dorsey Whitney
88 F.3d 536 (8th Cir. 1996) Cited 251 times
Holding challenge to § 1367(c) remand order was properly heard on direct appeal, rather than petition for a writ of mandamus, where remand order was final because defendant "would have no other opportunity to appeal that decision in federal court"
State of R.I. v. Narragansett Indian Tribe
19 F.3d 685 (1st Cir. 1994) Cited 183 times
Holding that the Rhode Island Settlement Act was impliedly repealed in relevant part by IGRA, id. at 705
Artichoke Joe's California Grand Casino v. Norton
353 F.3d 712 (9th Cir. 2003) Cited 116 times
Holding that "[a]lthough the trend of judicial construction of § 2710(d)(B) slightly favors" reading "any" as "one," interpreting "any" as "every" not unreasonable
Iowa Tribe of Kansas v. Salazar
607 F.3d 1225 (10th Cir. 2010) Cited 66 times
Finding no subject matter jurisdiction where the Interior Department, post-complaint, took certain land into trust for an Indian tribe's benefit, an action for which Congress had expressly not waived sovereign immunity
Tamiami Part. v. Miccosukee Tribe
177 F.3d 1212 (11th Cir. 1999) Cited 91 times
Concluding issues not sufficiently related to permit exercise of pendent appellate jurisdiction
Wyandotte Nation v. Sebelius
443 F.3d 1247 (10th Cir. 2006) Cited 65 times
Holding that plaintiff made strong showing regarding the balance of harms under the heightened standard for a mandatory injunction in part because plaintiff had substantial likelihood of success on the merits
Halmos v. Bomardier Aerospace Corp.
404 F. App'x 376 (11th Cir. 2010) Cited 54 times
Holding that the permissible scope of a 12(b) motion to dismiss encompasses "the complaint, attachments to the complaint, and matters of public record"
Section 2701 - Findings
25 U.S.C. § 2701 Cited 823 times 19 Legal Analyses
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
25 U.S.C. § 2710 Cited 693 times 16 Legal Analyses
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
25 U.S.C. § 2703 Cited 365 times 3 Legal Analyses
Defining "class III gaming"
Section 1507 - Filing document as constructive notice; publication in Federal Register as presumption of validity; judicial notice; citation
44 U.S.C. § 1507 Cited 312 times 1 Legal Analyses
Stating that notice by publication in the Federal Register "is sufficient to give notice of the contents of the document to a person subject to or affected by it"
Section 2702 - Declaration of policy
25 U.S.C. § 2702 Cited 281 times
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
18 U.S.C. § 1166 Cited 113 times
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 2713 - Civil penalties
25 U.S.C. § 2713 Cited 53 times
Setting forth administrative review procedures

State of Alabama v. PCI Gaming Authority et al

36 Cited authorities

Holding that “an Indian tribe is subject to suit only where Congress has authorized the suit or the tribe has waived its immunity”

Holding that a list following "shall include" was exhaustive where Congress "defined the term by including only three discrete definitions"

Holding that "[t]he fact that the removal was effected on petition of the United States and the stipulation of its attorney in relation thereto are facts without legal significance"

Holding challenge to § 1367(c) remand order was properly heard on direct appeal, rather than petition for a writ of mandamus, where remand order was final because defendant "would have no other opportunity to appeal that decision in federal court"

Holding that the Rhode Island Settlement Act was impliedly repealed in relevant part by IGRA, id. at 705

Holding that "[a]lthough the trend of judicial construction of § 2710(d)(B) slightly favors" reading "any" as "one," interpreting "any" as "every" not unreasonable

Finding no subject matter jurisdiction where the Interior Department, post-complaint, took certain land into trust for an Indian tribe's benefit, an action for which Congress had expressly not waived sovereign immunity

Concluding issues not sufficiently related to permit exercise of pendent appellate jurisdiction

Holding that plaintiff made strong showing regarding the balance of harms under the heightened standard for a mandatory injunction in part because plaintiff had substantial likelihood of success on the merits

Holding that the permissible scope of a 12(b) motion to dismiss encompasses "the complaint, attachments to the complaint, and matters of public record"

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”

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

Defining "class III gaming"

Stating that notice by publication in the Federal Register "is sufficient to give notice of the contents of the document to a person subject to or affected by it"

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"

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.

Setting forth administrative review procedures