Cases

RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION Pursuant to Sixth Circuit I.O.P. 32.1(b) File Name: 25a0346p.06 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT ┐ STATE OF OKLAHOMA; OKLAHOMA HORSE RACING COMMISSION;

In the United States Court of Federal Claims Nos. 12-431L, 12-592L, 13-51X (Filed: November 14, 2019) ************************************** * GRACE M. GOODEAGLE, et al., * Plaintiffs, * v. * * THE UNITED STATES, * Defendant. * ************************************** * QUAPAW

■ Indian Tribe Claims; Breach of Trust Obligations; Partial Summary Judgment; Law of the Case; Binding Effect of Government-Sponsored Accounting Reports; Establishing Government Duties to Tribes; Congressional Reference; Statute of Limitations in Tribal Claims; Res Judicata. OPINION AND ORDER ON CROSS-MOTIONS FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT WHEELER, Judge

Discovery Dispute; Organization and Labeling of Documents Produced in Haphazard Fashion; Government’s Duty to Designate Person(s) to Testify at Rule 30(b)(6) Deposition. OPINION AND ORDER ON PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR DISCOVERY RELIEF WHEELER, Judge. In these Indian Tribe eases involving significant claims against the United

Indian Tribe Claims; Breach of Fiduciary Duty; Breach of Trust Obligations; Partial Summary Judgment; Binding Effect of Government-Sponsored Accounting Reports. OPINION AND ORDER ON PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT WHEELER, Judge. This case involves the claims of the Qua-paw Indian Tribe of Oklahoma fo

Indian Tribe Claims for Tribal Trust Fund Mismanagement; Cross-Motions for Partial Summary Judgment; Fiduciary Duties to Indian Tribes; Breach of Trust; 25 U.S.C. § 164. OPINION AND ORDER ON CROSS-MOTIONS FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT WHEELER, Judge. Plaintiff, the Quapaw Tribe of Oklahoma, is a federally recognized Ind

Indian Tribe Claims for Tribal Trust Fund Mismanagement; Rule 12(b)(1) and (b)(6) Motion to Dismiss; Fiduciary Duties to Indian Tribes; 28 U.S.C. § 2501; Statute of Limitations; Effect of Appropriations Act Riders. OPINION AND ORDER ON DEFENDANT’S MOTION ■ TO DISMISS WHEELER, Judge. Plaintiff, the Quapaw Tribe of Okla

OPINION ALLEGRA, Judge: This is one of several cases in which defendant has moved to dismiss a plaintiffs complaint under RCFC 12(b)(1), asserting that the subsequent filing of a district court action serves to divest this court of subject matter jurisdiction over an earlier-filed ease under 28 U.S.C. § 1500, as interpreted in United States v. Tohono O’odham Nation, — U.S. —, 131 S.Ct. 1723, 179

656 F.3d 1129 (2011) MIAMI TRIBE OF OKLAHOMA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. UNITED STATES of America, Kenneth Salazar, Secretary, United States Department of the Interior, Larry Echohawk, Assistant Secretary of Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Defendants-Appellants. No. 10-3060. United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit. August 30, 2011.

PRELIMINARY PRINT Volume 604 U. S. Part 1 Pages 226–304 OFFICIAL REPORTS OF THE SUPREME COURT February 25, 2025 Page Proof Pending Publication REBECCA A. WOMELDORF reporter of decisions NOTICE: This preliminary print is subject to formal revision before the bound volume is published. Users are

PRELIMINARY PRINT Volume 605 U. S. Part 2 Pages 609–626 OFFICIAL REPORTS OF THE SUPREME COURT June 18, 2025 Page Proof Pending Publication REBECCA A. WOMELDORF reporter of decisions NOTICE: This preliminary print is subject to formal revision before the bound volume is published. Users are

(Slip Opinion) OCTOBER TERM, 2024 1 Syllabus NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued. The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader. See United States v. Detroit

OPINION AND ORDER MEROW, Senior Judge. By statute this court lacks jurisdiction over any suit “for or in respect to” claims that are pending in another court. Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss contends that plaintiffs previously-filed district court complaint shares substantially the same operative facts as this, the second-filed action. For the following reasons, because plaintiffs district court

(Slip Opinion) OCTOBER TERM, 2024 1 Syllabus NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued. The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader. See United States v. Detroit

*470 ORDER EMILY C. HEWITT, Chief Judge. Before the court are Plaintiff Osage Nation’s Opening Post^Trial Brief Regarding the Tranche One Testimony of Charles Hui'l-burt, Docket Number (Dkt. No.) 589, filed on October 4, 2010; Defendant’s Opening Brief Regarding Judicial Notice (Def.’s Br.), Dkt. No. 590, filed on October 4, 2010; Defendant

582 F.3d 1306 (2009) EASTERN SHAWNEE TRIBE OF OKLAHOMA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES, Defendant-Appellee. No. 2008-5102. United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit. September 17, 2009. *1307 Brian J. Leinbach, Engstrom, Lipscomb & Lack, of Los Angeles, CA, argued for plaintiff-appellant. Aaron P. Avila, T

598 F.3d 1326 (2010) EASTERN SHAWNEE TRIBE OF OKLAHOMA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES, Defendant-Appellee. No. 2008-5102. United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit. March 17, 2010. *1327 Aaron P. Avila, Attorney, Environment and Natural Resources Division, United States Department of Justice, of Washington, DC, file

KELLY, Circuit Judge, concurring in part and dissenting in part. Although I agree with much of the court’s analysis, I dissent with respect to whether certain EPA actions were arbitrary and capricious. See Ct. Op. Pt. IV(A) (analyzing the EPA’s calculations of baseline emissions and its determination regarding the technical feasibility of the smaller scrubbers on whi

558 F.3d 592 (2009) CHEYENNE ARAPAHO TRIBES OF OKLAHOMA, Appellant v. UNITED STATES of America, et al., Appellees. No. 07-5399. United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit. Argued January 5, 2009. Decided March 17, 2009. *593 Richard J. Grellner argued the cause for appellant. With him on the bri

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma denied.