Case Summaries
Indian Law
[05/13]
Lawrence v. Dep't of the Interior
In an action brought by an Indian tribe member employed by the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) challenging the denial of increased retirement benefits payable to employees whose duties included firefighting, summary judgment for the BIA is affirmed where: 1) the government did not waive the time limit of 5 C.F.R. section 831.906(e) by failing to provide actual notice of the new time limit for filing to current employees; 2) the federal government's trust responsibility toward Indian tribes imposes no special notice obligation beyond that enunciated in the aforementioned rule; 3) the Indian Preference Act does not apply, and the regular provisions of the Civil Service Regulations govern plaintiff as they do any other employee; and 4) summary judgment on a disparate impact claim was proper.
[05/08]
US v. Pete
A conviction for second degree murder on an Indian reservation, felony murder, and conspiracy to commit murder, is affirmed where: 1) the entire period from the time defendant filed his "Motion to Recall the Mandate" on December 23, 2004, up until the Supreme Court denied his certiorari petition on June 20, 2005, was excludable; and 2) thus, the Speedy Trial Act (STA) was not violated and a motion to dismiss the indictment was properly denied.
[05/06]
House v. Bravo
In habeas proceedings arising from petitioner's conviction for driving while intoxicated, vehicular homicide, and related offenses, denial of the habeas petition is affirmed over challenges alleging that: 1) a transfer of venue improperly eliminated all Native American members from the venire; 2) court misapplied federal law by failing to conduct voir dire before presuming that an entire county venire was tainted by pretrial publicity, and transferring venue; 3) the state's discriminatory use of a New Mexico venue transfer statute constituted a structural error that violated his Fourteenth Amendment rights; 4) the state court erred in its sentencing decision; and 5) the trial court's refusal to recuse at resentencing violated the defendant's right to due process.
[04/29]
Michigan Gambling Opposition v. Kempthorne
In an action alleging that agency approval of a proposed casino violated the National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA) and the unconstitutionality of section 5 of the Indian Reorganization Act (IRA), summary judgment for defendant is affirmed where: 1) defendant did not violate NEPA; and 2) section 5 of the IRA is not an unconstitutional delegation of legislative authority.
[04/10]
Erika K. v. Brett D.
In a case in which the Indian Child Welfare Act applied in child custody proceedings, an order awarding custody is reversed and remanded where: 1) although the family court did not err in applying the Family Code's custody provisions; nevertheless 2) the court erroneously concluded that the ICWA was unconstitutional before applying its substantive provisions.
More...
|
