Appellant Brief - Turtle Talk

More documents

Recommendations

Info

2. The Tribal Court Should Be Afforded an Opportunity to Develop Evidence Regarding the Threat That Nord Trucking’s Conduct Poses to the Tribe’s Political Integrity, Economic Security, and Health or Welfare. The District Court incorrectly granted the Nords’ Motion for Summary Judgment without allowing the Tribal Court to conduct discovery regarding whether the Nords’ conduct posed a threat to the Tribe’s political integrity, economic security, and health or welfare. The Supreme Court of Minnesota has recognized that the Red Lake Band is unique among the State’s Indian tribes. Indeed, the Supreme Court has recognized: “the land of the Red Lake tribe has never been formally ceded to the United States.” Brun, 174 N.W.2d at 122. Requiring the Red Lake Band—which has never ceded any part of its diminished Reservation to non-Indian jurisdiction—to cede its regulatory authority over the right-of-way at issue here threatens the Band’s unique political integrity. The Band’s special status alone justifies application of the second Montana exception here. Moreover, the character of the Highway 89 and 1 corridor, which is the main street in the Reservation towns of Red Lake and Redby and near which most Band members live, is very different from the highway at issue in Strate and involves a much greater interest in the Band for public safety and the welfare of tribal members like Mr. Kelly. 45
In summary, there are a number of issues on which the Tribal Court should have been allowed to develop evidence. The Tribal Court satisfied the requirements of Rule 56(f) by making the good faith showing that postponement of the ruling on summary judgment would have allowed the Tribal Court to discover additional evidence that might rebut the Nords’ showing of the absence of a genuine issue of material fact. 13 Therefore, the Tribal Court should be afforded the opportunity to develop that evidence. And, since no discovery took place in the federal court case, and the Nords proceeded straight to summary judgment, the Tribal Court was not dilatory in seeking such evidence under the circumstances. III. THE DISTRICT COURT INCORRECTLY HELD THAT A VALID RIGHT-OF-WAY IS IN FORCE FOR THE STRETCH OF HIGHWAY ON WHICH THE ACCIDENT OCCURRED AND THAT THE RIGHT-OF-WAY CANNOT BE CHALLENGED IN THIS PROCEEDING. A. The Purported Right-of-Way is Void for Failure of Lawful Approval Pursuant to the Governing Regulations. As explained above, the Tribal Court asserts, and with discovery can gather more evidence to show, that the parties to the 1955 agreement between the State 13 The need for discovery here intensifies if the District Court’s holding can be interpreted to go beyond application to the Nords in this case. If the holding can be used in future cases regarding this right-of-way, then the Court must reverse and remand with instructions to allow the Tribal Court to conduct additional discovery. To hold otherwise is error, and contrary to the purpose of discovery. 46
Page 1 and 2:
Chad Dennis Nord, Dennis Nord, d/b/
Page 3 and 4:
CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT Neit
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: an errand to pick up hay for [his]
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

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?