Appellant Brief - Turtle Talk

B. Additional Discovery Would Have Led to Necessary Evidence
Regarding Whether the Two Montana Exceptions Apply.
The Tribal Court also was denied the opportunity to conduct discovery that
would show that one or both of the Montana exceptions apply to the Tribal Court’s
exercise of jurisdiction in this case. Under Montana, a tribe may exercise
jurisdiction over nonmember conduct on non-Indian fee land if either: (1) the
nonmember has entered a consensual relationship with the tribe, or (2) the
nonmember’s conduct “threatens or has some direct effect on the political integrity,
the economic security, or the health or welfare of the tribe.” 450 U.S. at 565-66.
The District Court prematurely granted summary judgment to the Nords before
giving the Tribal Court the opportunity to develop evidence on the Montana
exceptions. If provided the chance to do so, however, the Tribal Court believes
that it could establish that one or both of these exceptions applies here.
1. The Tribal Court should have been afforded an opportunity
to develop evidence regarding the consensual relationship
between Nord Trucking and the Band.
First, both the Tribal Court and the District Court found that at the time of
the accident, Mr. Nord was driving a semi-truck owned by Nord Trucking and that
Nord Trucking had established a consensual commercial relationship with the
Band to haul and remove timber from the reservation. In an affidavit submitted
herein, Defendant Nord has stated that at the time of the accident, he was “running
43