Appellant Brief - Turtle Talk

More documents

Recommendations

Info

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
Page 53 and 54:
A. Additional Discovery Would Have
Page 55 and 56:
an errand to pick up hay for [his]
Page 57 and 58:
In summary, there are a number of i
Page 59 and 60:
1. The State’s Application for th
Page 61 and 62:
of these items renders the stipulat
Page 63 and 64:
Section 256.7 requires that the sti
Page 65 and 66:
3. The Right-of-Way is Void Because
Page 67 and 68:
their authority; and one who deals
Page 69 and 70:
2. Any State Reliance or Past Compe
Page 71 and 72:
Court agrees with the District Cour
Page 73 and 74:
ADDENDUM Nord v. Kelly, et al., No.
show all

Appellant Brief - Turtle Talk

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?