Appellant Brief - Turtle Talk

More documents

Recommendations

Info

B. Additional Discovery Would Have Led to Necessary Evidence Regarding Whether the Two Montana Exceptions Apply ........43 1. The Tribal Court should have been afforded an opportunity to develop evidence regarding the consensual relationship between Nord Trucking and the Band ........43 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 ......45 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 .........................................46 A. The Purported Right-of-Way is Void for Failure of Lawful Approval Pursuant to the Governing Regulations ..............46 1. The State’s Application for the Right-of-Way, and the BIA’s approval were defective, and did not create a lawful right-of-way.................................48 2. The District Court Incorrectly and Without Authority Held That the Right-of-Way Drafting Requirements as Set out by the Applicable Regulations Were Unimportant, and That the Incomplete Application Satisfied All of the Requirements......................50 3. The Right-of-Way is Void Because the State’s Interest in the Right-of-Way Did Not Vest Without Valid Federal Approval .........................................54 B. The Purported Right-of-Way Was Void Ab Initio and Thus Never Existed ..........................................57 iv
1. It is absurd to expect the Tribe to challenge an interest in property that is void ................................57 2. Any State Reliance or Past Compensation on the Purported Right-of-Way Does Not Create Something That Did Not Exist in the First Place ...................58 CONCLUSION ...................................................60 v
Page 1 and 2: Chad Dennis Nord, Dennis Nord, d/b/
Page 3 and 4: CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT Neit
Page 5: Fact-Specific Application of the St
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

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?