Appellant Brief - Turtle Talk

In Strate, the Supreme Court applied the Montana Rule to an accident
occurring on a state’s right-of-way over tribal trust land. 520 U.S. 438. The Court
explained that even though the case involved tribal trust land, the Montana rule
would apply because the Tribe had relinquished its control over the right-of-way.
Id. at 455-56. For this reason, the Court concluded, the right-of-way was the
equivalent of non-Indian fee land for jurisdictional purposes. Id. The District
Court’s interpretation of that holding–that all rights-of-way are the equivalent of
non-Indian land–was incorrect. Correspondingly, its grant of summary judgement
was inappropriate.
A. Standard of Review
This Court reviews a district court’s grant of summary judgment de novo.
See Bass v. SBC Communications, Inc., 418 F.3d 870, 872 (8th Cir. 2005).
Summary judgment is appropriate only “if the pleadings, depositions, answers to
interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits . . . show that
there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is
entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). “As a general rule,
summary judgment is proper only after the nonmovant has had adequate time for
discovery.” Iverson v. Johnson Gas Appliance Co., 172 F3d. 524, 530 (8th Cir.
1999) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). More generally, this Court
reviews questions of law de novo. Watkins v. Nat’l Transp. Safety Bd., 178 F.3d
12