Appellant Brief - Turtle Talk
Appellant Brief - Turtle Talk Appellant Brief - Turtle Talk
SUMMARY OF THE CASE Chad Nord, a non-Indian, was driving a semi-truck on Minnesota Highway 1 and 89 within the Red Lake Indian Reservation when he rear-ended Donald Kelly’s car. Kelly, a Red Lake Nation member, suffered injuries and filed a personal- injury action in the Red Lake Nation Tribal Court. The Nords filed a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. The Nords also filed an action in the District Court requesting declaratory and injunctive relief and alleging that the Tribal Court did not have jurisdiction to hear the matter against the Nords. The Tribal Court determined that it had jurisdiction over the matter, and the Tribal Appellate Court affirmed. During the Tribal Court appellate process, the parties stipulated to stay the action in District Court until the Tribal Court appeal was resolved. The parties returned to the district court action when the stay ended. The District Court refused the Tribal Court’s request for additional time to conduct discovery under Rule 56(f) and granted the Nords’ motion for summary judgment. The District Court held that the Tribal Court did not have jurisdiction over the matter because the accident occurred on a validly granted right-of-way and that the right-of-way was the equivalent of non-Indian fee land. The Tribal Court requests thirty (30) minutes for oral argument because of the complexity of issues involved in this case and notes that oral argument in the district court took more than fifty-four (54) minutes.
CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT Neither the Red Lake Nation Tribal Court, a part of the government of the Red Lake Band of Chippewa Indians, a federally recognized Indian tribe, nor Donald Michael Kelly, an individual, must make such a disclosure. i
- Page 1: Chad Dennis Nord, Dennis Nord, d/b/
- Page 5 and 6: Fact-Specific Application of the St
- Page 7 and 8: 1. It is absurd to expect the Tribe
- Page 9 and 10: Hwy. 7 Embers, Inc. v. NW Nat’l B
- Page 11 and 12: Minn. Stat. § 97A.505, subd. 3b ..
- Page 13 and 14: Strate v. A-1 Contractors, 520 U.S.
- Page 15 and 16: that the Nords failed to establish
- Page 17 and 18: Nords against further proceedings i
- Page 19 and 20: Moreover, the District Court’s in
- Page 21 and 22: At a minimum and contrary to the Di
- Page 23 and 24: In Strate, the Supreme Court applie
- Page 25 and 26: 1. While Strate Does Contain Facial
- Page 27 and 28: limited right-of-way, like that all
- Page 29 and 30: “such as this one.” Recall, how
- Page 31 and 32: Here, the Tribal Court has requeste
- Page 33 and 34: nature of such a “right-of-way”
- Page 35 and 36: allowed to develop in discovery wou
- Page 37 and 38: Perhaps more importantly, the State
- Page 39 and 40: General Treatment by the State The
- Page 41 and 42: Declaration makes apparent, the Sta
- Page 43 and 44: tribal land. At the very least, the
- Page 45 and 46: Accordingly, under the terms of any
- Page 47 and 48: District Court incorrectly conclude
- Page 49 and 50: Continue Hr’g, and for Contingent
- Page 51 and 52: l. that the State and County law en
SUMMARY OF THE CASE<br />
Chad Nord, a non-Indian, was driving a semi-truck on Minnesota Highway 1<br />
and 89 within the Red Lake Indian Reservation when he rear-ended Donald Kelly’s<br />
car. Kelly, a Red Lake Nation member, suffered injuries and filed a personal-<br />
injury action in the Red Lake Nation Tribal Court. The Nords filed a motion to<br />
dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. The Nords also filed an action in the District Court<br />
requesting declaratory and injunctive relief and alleging that the Tribal Court did<br />
not have jurisdiction to hear the matter against the Nords. The Tribal Court<br />
determined that it had jurisdiction over the matter, and the Tribal Appellate Court<br />
affirmed. During the Tribal Court appellate process, the parties stipulated to stay<br />
the action in District Court until the Tribal Court appeal was resolved. The parties<br />
returned to the district court action when the stay ended. The District Court<br />
refused the Tribal Court’s request for additional time to conduct discovery under<br />
Rule 56(f) and granted the Nords’ motion for summary judgment. The District<br />
Court held that the Tribal Court did not have jurisdiction over the matter because<br />
the accident occurred on a validly granted right-of-way and that the right-of-way<br />
was the equivalent of non-Indian fee land. The Tribal Court requests thirty (30)<br />
minutes for oral argument because of the complexity of issues involved in this case<br />
and notes that oral argument in the district court took more than fifty-four (54)<br />
minutes.
Change language