Supreme Court Upholds Indian Tribe's Authority to Impose Severance Tax on Oil and Gas Production

102 S.Ct.
894 Page 1
455 U.S. 130, 102 S.Ct. 894, 71 L.Ed.2d 21
(Cite as: 455 U.S. 130, 102 S.Ct. 894)
Supreme Court of the United States

J. Gregory MERRION and Robert L. Bayless, etc., et al., Petitioners,
v.
JICARILLA APACHE TRIBE, et al.
AMOCO PRODUCTION COMPANY and Marathon Oil Company, Petitioners,
v.
JICARILLA APACHE INDIAN TRIBE, et al.
Nos. 80-11, 80-15.
Argued March 30, 1981.
Reargued Nov. 4, 1981.
Decided Jan. 25, 1982.
Non-Indian lessees who produced oil and gas from within tribe's reservation pursuant to
leases granted them under auspices of Secretary of Interior brought two suits, consolidated for
trial, against the Jicarilla Apache Tribe and its tribal council seeking declaratory judgment and
injunction that would prohibit enforcement of the tribe's oil and gas severance tax to be meas-
ured by the production from oil and gas wells within the reservation. The United States Dis-
trict Court for the District of New Mexico, H. Verale Payne, J., declared the tax illegal. The
tribe appealed. The Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, sitting en banc, 617 F.2d 537, re-
versed. Certiorari was granted. The Supreme Court, Justice Marshall, held that: (1) the tribe
has the inherent power to impose a severance tax on mining activities as part of its power to
govern and to pay for the costs of self-government; (2) even if the tribe's power to tax was de-
rived solely from its power to exclude non-Indians from the reservation, the tribe has the au-
thority to impose the tax; (3) the federal government did not deprive the tribe of its authority
to impose the tax; (4) the severance tax does not violate the negative implications of the
commerce clause; and (5) even if judicial scrutiny under the commerce clause was necessary,
the tax would survive that scrutiny.
Affirmed.
Justice Stevens filed a dissenting opinion in which Chief Justice Burger and Justice
Rehnquist joined.
West Headnotes
[1] Indians 209 225
209 Indians
209V Government of Indian Country, Reservations, and Tribes in General
209k225 k. Taxes Imposed by Tribe. Most Cited Cases
(Formerly 209k2)
Power to tax is essential attribute of Indian sovereignty in that it is a necessary instrument
2011 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.

102 S.Ct. 894 Page 2
455 U.S. 130, 102 S.Ct. 894, 71 L.Ed.2d 21
(Cite as: 455 U.S. 130, 102 S.Ct. 894)
of self-government and territorial management which enables tribal government to raise rev-
enues for its essential services. Indian Reorganization Act, 16, 25 U.S.C.A. 476.
[2] Indians 209 225
209 Indians
(Formerly 209k2)
Power of Indian tribe to tax does not derive solely from Indian tribe's power to exclude
non-Indians from tribal lands; instead, it derives from tribe's general authority as sovereign, to
control economic activity within its jurisdiction and to defray cost of providing governmental
services by requiring contributions from persons or enterprises engaged in economic activities
within that jurisdiction. Indian Reorganization Act, 16, 25 U.S.C.A. 476.
[3] Indians 209 120
209 Indians
209I In General
209k120 k. Regulation of Intercourse with Indians. Most Cited Cases
(Formerly 209k33)
Indians 209 225
209 Indians
(Formerly 209k33, 209k32(9))
Where non-Indian oil and gas lessees availed themselves of substantial privilege of carry-
ing on business on Indian reservation and lessees benefited from provision of police protec-
tion and other governmental services, as well as from advantages of civilized society that were
assured by existence of tribal government, there was nothing exceptional in requiring lessees
to contribute through taxes to general cost of tribal government. Indian Reorganization Act,
16, 25 U.S.C.A. 476.
[4] Indians 209 225
209 Indians
(Formerly 209k32(9), 209k32)
Mere fact that Indian tribe which imposed a severance tax on oil and gas production on tri-
bal reservation land also enjoyed rents and royalties as lessor of mineral lands did not under-
mine tribe's authority to impose severance tax. Indian Reorganization Act, 16, 25 U.S.C.A.
476.
[5] Indians 209 223

102 S.Ct. 894 Page 3
455 U.S. 130, 102 S.Ct. 894, 71 L.Ed.2d 21
(Cite as: 455 U.S. 130, 102 S.Ct. 894)
209 Indians
209k223 k. Regulation of Non-Members by Tribe or Tribal Government. Most Cited
Cases
(Formerly 209k33)
Indians 209 225
209 Indians
(Formerly 209k33)
Indian tribe's authority to tax non-Indians who conduct business on reservation does not
simply derive from tribe's power to exclude such persons, but is inherent power necessary to
tribal self-government and territorial management. Indian Reorganization Act, 16, 25
U.S.C.A. 476.
[6] Indians 209 120
209 Indians
209I In General
(Formerly 209k33)
Indians 209 225
209 Indians
(Formerly 209k33)
Indian tribe's authority to tax nonmembers is subject to constraints not imposed on other
governmental entities: federal government can take away this power and tribe must obtain ap-
proval of Secretary of Interior before any tax on nonmembers can take effect; these additional
constraints minimize potential concern that Indian tribes will exercise power to tax in unfair
or unprincipled manner and ensure that any exercise of tribal power to tax will be consistent
with national policies. Indian Reorganization Act, 16, 25 U.S.C.A. 476.
[7] Indians 209 223
209 Indians
Cases
(Formerly 209k33)
Indians 209 225

102 S.Ct. 894 Page 4
455 U.S. 130, 102 S.Ct. 894, 71 L.Ed.2d 21
(Cite as: 455 U.S. 130, 102 S.Ct. 894)
209 Indians
(Formerly 209k33)
Source of Indian tribe's authority to tax non-Indians is not limited to tribe's power to ex-
clude such persons from tribal lands, since limiting tribes' authority to tax in that manner con-
tradicts conception that Indian tribes are domestic, dependent nations, as well as common un-
derstanding that sovereign taxing power is tool for raising revenue necessary to cover costs of
government. Indian Reorganization Act, 16, 25 U.S.C.A. 476.
[8] Indians 209 120
209 Indians
209I In General
(Formerly 209k33)
Indians 209 223
209 Indians
Cases
(Formerly 209k33)
Although there is significant territorial component to tribal power in that tribe has no au-
thority over nonmember until nonmember enters tribal lands or conducts business with tribe,
that territorial component to Indian taxing power does not mean that tribal authority to tax de-
rives solely from tribe's power to exclude nonmembers from tribal lands. Indian Reorganiza-
tion Act, 16, 25 U.S.C.A. 476.
[9] Indians 209 225
209 Indians
(Formerly 209k33)
Even if Indian tribe's authority to tax nonmembers derives solely from its power to ex-
clude non-Indians from reservation, Indian tribe has authority to impose severance tax on oil
and gas production on tribal reservation land. Indian Reorganization Act, 16, 25 U.S.C.A.
476.
[10] Indians 209 223
209 Indians
Cases

102 S.Ct. 894 Page 5
455 U.S. 130, 102 S.Ct. 894, 71 L.Ed.2d 21
(Cite as: 455 U.S. 130, 102 S.Ct. 894)
(Formerly 209k33)
Indians 209 225
209 Indians
(Formerly 209k33)
Nonmembers who lawfully enter tribal lands remain subject to tribe's power to exclude
them and this power necessarily includes lesser power to place conditions on entry, on contin-
ued presence, or on reservation conduct, such as tax on business activities conducted on reser-
vation. Indian Reorganization Act, 16, 25 U.S.C.A. 476.
[11] Indians 209 223
209 Indians
Cases
(Formerly 209k33)
Indians 209 225
209 Indians
(Formerly 209k33)
When Indian tribe grants non-Indian right to be on Indian land, tribe agrees not to exercise
its ultimate power to oust non-Indian as long as non-Indian complies with initial conditions of
entry; however, it does not follow that lawful property right to be on Indian land also immun-
izes non-Indian from tribe's exercise of its lesser included power to tax or to place other con-
ditions on non-Indian's conduct or continued presence on reservation. Indian Reorganization
Act, 16, 25 U.S.C.A. 476.
[12] Indians 209 120
209 Indians
209I In General
(Formerly 209k33)
Nonmember who enters jurisdiction of Indian tribe remains subject to risk that tribe will
later exercise its sovereign power. Indian Reorganization Act, 16, 25 U.S.C.A. 476.
[13] Indians 209 120
209 Indians
209I In General

102 S.Ct. 894 Page 6
455 U.S. 130, 102 S.Ct. 894, 71 L.Ed.2d 21
(Cite as: 455 U.S. 130, 102 S.Ct. 894)

(Formerly 209k33)
Indians 209 225
209 Indians
(Formerly 209k33)
Fact that Indian tribe chooses not to exercise its power to tax when it initially grants to
non-Indian right of entry onto reservation does not permanently divest tribe of its authority to
impose such tax. Indian Reorganization Act, 16, 25 U.S.C.A. 476.
[14] Indians 209 103
209 Indians
209I In General
209k102 Status of Indian Nations or Tribes
209k103 k. In General. Most Cited Cases
(Formerly 209k2)
Whatever place consent may have in contractual matters and in creation of democratic
governments, it has little, if any, role in measuring validity of exercise of legitimate sovereign
authority by Indian tribe. Indian Reorganization Act, 16, 25 U.S.C.A. 476.
[15] Indians 209 106
209 Indians
209I In General
209k106 k. Authority Over and Regulation of Tribes in General. Most Cited Cases
(Formerly 209k2)
Only federal government may limit Indian tribe's exercise of its sovereign authority. Indi-
an Reorganization Act, 16, 25 U.S.C.A. 476.
[16] Indians 209 120
209 Indians
209I In General
(Formerly 209k33)
Indian sovereignty is not conditioned on assent of nonmember; to the contrary, nonmem-
ber's presence and conduct on Indian lands is conditioned by limitations tribe may choose to
impose. Indian Reorganization Act, 16, 25 U.S.C.A. 476.
[17] Indians 209 120
209 Indians
209I In General

102 S.Ct. 894 Page 7
455 U.S. 130, 102 S.Ct. 894, 71 L.Ed.2d 21
(Cite as: 455 U.S. 130, 102 S.Ct. 894)

(Formerly 209k33)
Indians 209 225
209 Indians
(Formerly 209k33, 209k32(9))
Absence of reference to severance tax on oil and gas production on tribal reservation land
in oil and gas leases themselves did not impair tribe's authority to impose that tax. Indian Re-
organization Act, 16, 25 U.S.C.A. 476.
[18] Constitutional Law 92 1120
92 Constitutional Law
92VII Constitutional Rights in General
92VII(B) Particular Constitutional Rights
92k1118 Freedom of Contract; Liberty of Contract
92k1120 k. Exercise of Police Power in General; Public Interest or Welfare in
General. Most Cited Cases
(Formerly 92k89(1))
Contractual arrangements remain subject to subsequent legislation by presiding sovereign.
[19] Taxation 371 2019
371 Taxation
371I In General
371k2019 k. Surrender or Suspension of Power. Most Cited Cases
(Formerly 371k31)
Even where contract requires payment of royalty for license or franchise issued by govern-
mental entity, government's power to tax remains unless it has been specifically surrendered
in terms which admit of no other reasonable interpretation.
[20] Indians 209 225
209 Indians
(Formerly 209k32(9), 209k32)
Taxation 371 2019
371 Taxation
371I In General
371k2019 k. Surrender or Suspension of Power. Most Cited Cases
(Formerly 371k31)

102 S.Ct. 894 Page 8
455 U.S. 130, 102 S.Ct. 894, 71 L.Ed.2d 21
(Cite as: 455 U.S. 130, 102 S.Ct. 894)
Differences in attributes of sovereignty between federal, state and local governments and
of Indian tribes do not alter principles for determining whether any of those governments has
waived through contract the sovereign power to impose tax. Indian Reorganization Act, 16,
25 U.S.C.A. 476.
[21] Constitutional Law 92 1120
92 Constitutional Law
92VII Constitutional Rights in General
92VII(B) Particular Constitutional Rights
92k1118 Freedom of Contract; Liberty of Contract
92k1120 k. Exercise of Police Power in General; Public Interest or Welfare in
General. Most Cited Cases
(Formerly 92k89(1))
Without regard to its source, sovereign power, even when unexercised, is enduring pres-
ence that governs all contracts subject to sovereign's jurisdiction, and will remain intact unless
surrendered in unmistakable terms.
[22] Indians 209 106
209 Indians
209I In General
209k106 k. Authority Over and Regulation of Tribes in General. Most Cited Cases
(Formerly 209k2)
To presume that Indian tribe forever waives right to exercise one of its sovereign powers
unless it expressly reserves the right to exercise that power in commercial agreement turns
concept of sovereignty on its head. Indian Reorganization Act, 16, 25 U.S.C.A. 476.
[23] Indians 209 225
209 Indians
(Formerly 209k32(9), 209k32)
Proper respect both for tribal sovereignty itself and for plenary authority of Congress in
this area cautions that Supreme Court tread lightly in absence of clear indications of legislat-
ive intent to deprive Indian tribes of their authority to impose severance tax on oil and gas
production on tribal reservation land. 25 U.S.C.A. 396a-396g, 396b, 398a-398e, 398c; Nat-
ural Gas Policy Act of 1978, 110(a), (c)(1), 15 U.S.C.A. 3320(a), (c)(1).
[24] Indians 209 212
209 Indians
209k212 k. Preemption. Most Cited Cases
(Formerly 209k32(9), 209k32)

102 S.Ct. 894 Page 9
455 U.S. 130, 102 S.Ct. 894, 71 L.Ed.2d 21
(Cite as: 455 U.S. 130, 102 S.Ct. 894)
Indians 209 225

209 Indians
(Formerly 209k32(9), 209k32)
Congress did not preempt Indian tribe's power to impose severance tax on oil and gas pro-
duction on tribal reservation land when Congress enacted sections establishing procedures for
leasing oil and gas interests on tribal lands, since those sections do not prohibit Indian tribe
from imposing severance tax on mining activities pursuant to its revised constitution when
both tribal constitution and ordinance authorizing tax are approved by Secretary of Interior. 25
U.S.C.A. 396a-396g, 396b.
[25] Indians 209 225
209 Indians
(Formerly 209k32(9), 209k32)
Statute permitting state taxation of mineral leases on Indian reservations does not divest
Indian tribe of its authority to impose severance tax on oil and gas production on tribal reser-
vation land. 25 U.S.C.A. 398a-398e, 398c.
[26] Indians 209 225
209 Indians
(Formerly 209k32(9), 209k2)
Mere existence of state authority to tax does not deprive Indian tribe of its power to tax.
Indian Reorganization Act, 16, 25 U.S.C.A. 476.
[27] Indians 209 212
209 Indians
209k212 k. Preemption. Most Cited Cases
(Formerly 209k32(9), 209k2)
Indians 209 225
209 Indians
(Formerly 209k32(9), 209k2)
Tribal taxation of oil and gas is not preempted by federal statutes governing energy policy
such as Natural Gas Policy Act. Natural Gas Policy Act of 1978, 110(a), (c)(1), 15 U.S.C.A.

102 S.Ct. 894 Page 10
455 U.S. 130, 102 S.Ct. 894, 71 L.Ed.2d 21
(Cite as: 455 U.S. 130, 102 S.Ct. 894)
3320(a), (c)(1).
[28] Indians 209 225
209 Indians
(Formerly 209k32(9), 209k32)
Federal government has not divested Indian tribe of its inherent authority to tax mining
activities on its land, whether this authority derives from tribe's power of self-government or
from its power to exclude. Indian Reorganization Act, 16, 25 U.S.C.A. 476.
[29] Commerce 83 62.71
83 Commerce
83II Application to Particular Subjects and Methods of Regulation
83II(E) Licenses and Taxes
83k62.70 Taxation in General
83k62.71 k. In General. Most Cited Cases
(Formerly 83k62.70)
State tax may violate negative implications of interstate commerce clause by unduly
burdening or discriminating against interstate commerce. U.S.C.A.Const.Art. 1, 8, cl. 3.
[30] Commerce 83 62.71
83 Commerce
(Formerly 83k62.70)
Judicial review of state taxes under interstate commerce clause is intended to ensure that
states do not disrupt or burden interstate commerce when Congress' power remains unexer-
cised: it protects free flow of commerce, and thereby safeguards Congress' latent power from
encroachment by the several states. U.S.C.A.Const.Art. 1, 8, cl. 3.
[31] Commerce 83 62.71
83 Commerce
(Formerly 83k62.70)
Once Congress acts, courts are not free to review state taxes or other regulations under
dormant commerce clause; when Congress has struck balance it deems appropriate, courts are
no longer needed to prevent states from burdening commerce, and it matters not that courts

102 S.Ct. 894 Page 11
455 U.S. 130, 102 S.Ct. 894, 71 L.Ed.2d 21
(Cite as: 455 U.S. 130, 102 S.Ct. 894)
would invalidate state tax or regulation under commerce clause in absence of congressional
action. U.S.C.A.Const.Art. 1, 8, cl. 3.
[32] Commerce 83 10
83 Commerce
83I Power to Regulate in General
83k2 Constitutional Grant of Power to Congress
83k10 k. Nonexercise of Power by Congress. Most Cited Cases
Courts are final arbiters under commerce clause only when Congress has not acted.
U.S.C.A.Const.Art. 1, 8, cl. 3.
[33] Commerce 83 64.5
83 Commerce
83k63 Licenses and Privilege Taxes
83k64.5 k. Production and Severance Taxes. Most Cited Cases
Since Congress has affirmatively acted by providing series of federal checkpoints that
must be cleared before Indian tribal tax can take effect, it was not necessary for Supreme
Court to determine whether Indian-imposed severance tax violated interstate commerce
clause. Indian Reorganization Act, 16, 17, 25 U.S.C.A. 476, 477; U.S.C.A.Const.Art. 1,
8, cl. 3.
[34] Indians 209 225
209 Indians
(Formerly 209k32(9), 209k2)
Although Congress retains plenary power to limit tribal taxing authority or to alter current
scheme under which Indian tribes may impose taxes, it is not Supreme Court's function nor its
prerogative to strike down tax that has traveled through precise channels established by Con-
gress and has obtained specific approval of Secretary of Interior. Indian Reorganization Act,
16, 17, 25 U.S.C.A. 476, 477; U.S.C.A.Const.Art. 1, 8, cl. 3.
[35] Commerce 83 64.5
83 Commerce
Severance tax imposed by Indian tribe on oil and gas production on tribal reservation land
does not violate interstate commerce clause, since tax does not treat minerals transported away
from reservation differently than it treats minerals that might be sold on reservation, nor does

102 S.Ct. 894 Page 12
455 U.S. 130, 102 S.Ct. 894, 71 L.Ed.2d 21
(Cite as: 455 U.S. 130, 102 S.Ct. 894)
the tax ordinance exempt minerals ultimately received by individual members of tribe.
U.S.C.A.Const.Art. 1, 8, cl. 3.
[36] Commerce 83 64.5
83 Commerce
Although ordinance by which Indian tribe imposed severance tax on oil and gas produc-
tion on tribal reservation land exempted minerals received by tribe as in-kind payments on
leases in use for tribal purposes, that exemption merely avoided administrative make-work
that would ensue if tribe, as local government, taxed amount of minerals that tribe, as com-
mercial partner, received in royalty payments, and, therefore, that exemption could not be
deemed discriminatory preference for local commerce. U.S.C.A.Const.Art. 1, 8, cl. 3.
**898 *130 Syllabus FN*
FN* 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 Lumber Co., 200 U.S. 321, 337, 26 S.Ct. 282, 287, 50 L.Ed. 499.
Respondent Indian Tribe, pursuant to its Revised Constitution (which had been approved
by the Secretary of the Interior (Secretary) as required by the Indian Reorganization Act of
1934), enacted an ordinance (also approved by the Secretary) imposing a severance tax on oil
and gas production on the tribal reservation land. Oil and gas received by the Tribe as in-kind
royalty payments from lessees of mineral leases on the reservation are exempted from the tax.
Petitioners, lessees under Secretary-approved long-term leases with the Tribe to extract oil
and natural gas deposits on reservation land, brought separate actions in Federal District Court
to enjoin enforcement of the tax. The District Court, consolidating the actions, entered a per-
manent injunction, ruling that the Tribe had no authority to impose the tax, that only state and
local authorities had the power to tax oil and gas production on Indian reservations, and that
the tax violated the Commerce Clause. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the taxing
power is an inherent attribute of tribal sovereignty that has not been divested by any treaty or
Act of Congress, and that there was no Commerce Clause violation.
Held:
1. The Tribe has the inherent power to impose the severance tax on petitioners' mining
activities as part of its power to govern and to pay for the costs of self-government. Pp.
901-909.
(a) The power to tax is an essential attribute of Indian sovereignty because it is a necessary
instrument of self-government and territorial management. This power enables a tribal gov-
ernment to receive revenues for its essential services. The power does not derive solely from
the Tribe's power to exclude non-Indians from tribal lands but from the Tribe's general author-

102 S.Ct. 894 Page 13
455 U.S. 130, 102 S.Ct. 894, 71 L.Ed.2d 21
(Cite as: 455 U.S. 130, 102 S.Ct. 894)
ity, as sovereign, to control economic activities within its jurisdiction, and to defray the cost
of providing governmental services by requiring contributions from persons or enterprises en-
gaged in such activities. Here, petitioners, who have availed themselves of *131 the privilege
of carrying on business on the reservation, benefit from police protection and other govern-
mental services, as well as from the advantages of a civilized society assured by tribal govern-
ment. Under these circumstances, there is nothing exceptional in requiring petitioners to con-
tribute through taxes to the general cost of such government. The mere fact that the Tribe en-
joys rents and royalties as the lessor of the mineral lands does not undermine its authority to
impose the tax. Pp. 901-905.
(b) Even if the Tribe's power to tax were derived solely from its power to exclude non-
Indians from the reservation, the Tribe has the authority to impose the severance tax. Non-
Indians who lawfully enter tribal lands remain subject to a tribe's power to exclude them,
which power includes the lesser power to tax or place other conditions on the non-Indian's
conduct or continued presence on the reservation. The Tribe's role as commercial partner with
petitioners should not be confused with its role as sovereign. It is one thing to find that the
Tribe has agreed to sell the right to use the land and take valuable minerals from it, and quite
another to find that the Tribe has abandoned its sovereign powers simply because it has not
expressly reserved them through a contract. To presume that a sovereign forever waives the
right to exercise one of its powers unless it expressly reserves the right to exercise that power
in a commercial agreement turns the concept of sovereignty on its head. Pp. 905-907.
**899 (c) The Federal Government did not deprive the Tribe of its authority to impose the
severance tax by Congress' enactment of the 1938 Act establishing the procedures for leasing
oil and gas interests on tribal lands. Such Act does not prohibit the Tribe from imposing the
tax when both the tribal Constitution and the ordinance authorizing the tax were approved by
the Secretary. Nor did the 1927 Act permitting state taxation of mineral leases on Indian reser-
vations divest the Tribe of its taxing power. The mere existence of state authority to tax does
not deprive an Indian tribe of its power to tax. Moreover, the severance tax does not conflict
with national energy policies. To the contrary, the fact that the Natural Gas Policy Act of 1978
includes taxes imposed by an Indian tribe in its definition of costs that may be recovered un-
der federal energy pricing regulations, indicates that such taxes would not contravene such
policies and that the tribal authority to do so is not implicitly divested by that Act. Pp.
907-909.
2. The severance tax does not violate the negative implications of the Commerce Clause.
Pp. 909-913.
(a) Courts are final arbiters under the Commerce Clause only when Congress has not ac-
ted. Here, Congress has affirmatively acted by providing a series of federal checkpoints that
must be cleared before a tribal *132 tax can take effect, and in this case the severance tax was
enacted in accordance with this congressional scheme. Pp. 910-911.
(b) Even if judicial scrutiny under the Commerce Clause were necessary, the challenged
tax would survive such scrutiny. The tax does not discriminate against interstate commerce
since it is imposed on minerals either sold on the reservation or transported off the reservation

102 S.Ct. 894 Page 14
455 U.S. 130, 102 S.Ct. 894, 71 L.Ed.2d 21
(Cite as: 455 U.S. 130, 102 S.Ct. 894)
before sale. And the exemption for minerals received by the Tribe as in-kind payments on the
leases and used for tribal purposes merely avoids the administrative make-work that would
ensue if the Tribe taxed the minerals that it, as a commercial partner, received in royalty pay-
ments, and thus cannot be deemed a discriminatory preference for local commerce. Pp.
911-912.
617 F.2d 537, 10th Cir., affirmed.
Jason W. Kellahin, Santa Fe, N.M., for petitioners in 80-11.
John R. Cooney, Albuquerque, N.M., for petitioners in 80-15.
Robert J. Nordhaus, Albuquerque, N.M., and Louis F. Claiborne, Washington, D.C., for re-
spondents.
*133 Justice MARSHALL delivered the opinion of the Court.

Pursuant to long-term leases with the Jicarilla Apache Tribe, petitioners, 21 lessees, ex-
tract and produce oil and gas from the Tribe's reservation lands. In these two consolidated
cases, petitioners challenge an ordinance enacted by the Tribe imposing a severance tax on
any oil and natural gas severed, saved and removed from Tribal lands. See Oil and Gas Sev-
erance Tax No. 77-0-02, App. 38. We granted certiorari to determine whether the Tribe has
the authority to impose this tax, and, if so, whether the tax imposed by the Tribe violates the
Commerce Clause.
I
The Jicarilla Apache Tribe resides on a reservation in northwestern New Mexico. Estab-
lished by Executive Order in 1887,FN1 **900 the reservation contains 742,315 acres, all of
which are held as tribal trust property. The 1887 Executive *134 Order set aside public lands
in the Territory of New Mexico for the use and occupation of the Jicarilla Apache Indians, and
contained no special restrictions except for a provision protecting pre-existing rights of bona
fide settlers.FN2 Approximately 2,100 individuals live on the reservation, with the majority
residing in the town of Dulce, N.M., near the Colorado border.
FN1. See 1 C. Kappler, Indian Affairs, Laws and Treaties 875 (1904) (Order of Presid-
ent Cleveland). Two earlier Orders setting aside land for the Tribe had been canceled.
See id., at 874-875 (Orders of Presidents Hayes and Grant). The boundaries of the re-
servation were redefined or clarified by Executive Orders issued by President
Theodore Roosevelt on November 11, 1907, and January 28, 1908, and by President
Taft on February 17, 1912. See 3 C. Kappler, Indian Affairs, Laws and Treaties 681,
682, 684, 685 (1913).
The fact that the Jicarilla Apache Reservation was established by Executive Order
rather than by treaty or statute does not affect our analysis; the Tribe's sovereign
power is not affected by the manner in which its reservation was created. E.g., Wash-
ington v. Confederated Tribes of Colville Reservation, 447 U.S. 134, 100 S.Ct. 2069,
65 L.Ed.2d 10 (1980).

102 S.Ct. 894 Page 15
455 U.S. 130, 102 S.Ct. 894, 71 L.Ed.2d 21
(Cite as: 455 U.S. 130, 102 S.Ct. 894)
FN2. The proviso reads as follows: this order shall not be so construed as to deprive
any bona fide settler of any valid rights he may have acquired under the law of the
United States providing for the disposition of the public domain. 1 C. Kappler, supra,
at 875.
The Tribe is organized under the Indian Reorganization Act of 1934, ch. 576, 48 Stat. 984,
25 U.S.C. 461 et seq., which authorizes any tribe residing on a reservation to adopt a con-
stitution and bylaws, subject to the approval of the Secretary of the Interior (Secretary).FN3
The Tribe's first Constitution, approved by the Secretary on August 4, 1937, preserved all
powers conferred by 16 of the Indian Reorganization Act of 1934, ch. 576, 48 Stat. 987, 25
U.S.C. 476. In 1968, the Tribe revised its Constitution to specify:
FN3. The Tribe is also chartered under the Indian Reorganization Act of 1934, ch. 576,
48 Stat. 988, 25 U.S.C. 477, which permits the Secretary to issue to an Indian tribe a
charter of incorporation that may give the tribe the power to purchase, manage, oper-
ate, and dispose of its property.
The inherent powers of the Jicarilla Apache Tribe, including those conferred by Section
16 of the Act of June 18, 1934 (48 Stat. 984), as amended, shall vest in the tribal council and
shall be exercised thereby subject only to limitations imposed by the Constitution of the
United States, applicable Federal statutes and regulations of *135 the Department of the In-
terior, and the restrictions established by this revised constitution. Revised Constitution of
the Jicarilla Apache Tribe, Art. XI, 1.
The Revised Constitution provides that [t]he tribal council may enact ordinances to gov-
ern the development of tribal lands and other resources, Art. XI, 1(a)(3). It further provides
that [t]he tribal council may levy and collect taxes and fees on tribal members, and may enact
ordinances, subject to approval by the Secretary of the Interior, to impose taxes and fees on
non-members of the tribe doing business on the reservation, Art. XI, 1(e). The Revised
Constitution was approved by the Secretary on February 13, 1969.
To develop tribal lands, the Tribe has executed mineral leases encompassing some 69% of
the reservation land. Beginning in 1953, the petitioners entered into leases with the Tribe. The
Commissioner of Indian Affairs, on behalf of the Secretary, approved these leases, as required
by the Act of May 11, 1938, ch. 198, 52 Stat. 347, 25 U.S.C. 396a-396g (1938 Act). In ex-
change for a cash bonus, royalties, and rents, the typical lease grants the lessee the exclusive
right and privilege to drill for, mine, extract, remove, and dispose of all the oil and natural gas
deposits in or under the leased land for as long as the minerals are produced in paying quant-
ities. App. 22. Petitioners may use oil and gas in developing the lease without incurring the
royalty. Id., at 24. In addition, the Tribe reserves the rights to use gas without charge for any
of its buildings on the leased land, and to take its royalties in kind. Id., at 27-28. Petitioners'
activities on the leased land have been subject to taxes imposed by the State of New Mexico
on oil and gas severance and on oil and gas production equipment. Id., at 129. See Act of Mar.
3, 1927, ch. 299, 3, 44 Stat. 1347, 25 U.S.C. 398c (permitting state taxation of mineral
production on Indian reservations) (1927 Act).
Pursuant to its Revised Constitution, the Tribal Council adopted an ordinance imposing

102 S.Ct. 894 Page 16
455 U.S. 130, 102 S.Ct. 894, 71 L.Ed.2d 21
(Cite as: 455 U.S. 130, 102 S.Ct. 894)
**901 a severance tax on oil and gas *136 production on tribal land. See App. 38. The ordin-
ance was approved by the Secretary, through the Acting Director of the Bureau of Indian Af-
fairs, on December 23, 1976. The tax applies to any oil and natural gas severed, saved and
removed from Tribal lands.... Ibid. The tax is assessed at the wellhead at $0.05 per million
Btu's of gas produced and $0.29 per barrel of crude oil or condensate produced on the reserva-
tion, and it is due at the time of severance. Id., at 38-39. Oil and gas consumed by the lessees
to develop their leases or received by the Tribe as in-kind royalty payments are exempted
from the tax. Ibid.; Brief for Respondent Jicarilla Apache Tribe 59, n. 42.
In two separate actions, petitioners sought to enjoin enforcement of the tax by either the
tribal authorities or the Secretary. The United States District Court for the District of New
Mexico consolidated the cases, granted other lessees leave to intervene, and permanently en-
joined enforcement of the tax. The District Court ruled that the Tribe lacked the authority to
impose the tax, that only state and local authorities had the power to tax oil and gas produc-
tion on Indian reservations, and that the tax violated the Commerce Clause.
The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, sitting en banc, reversed. 617
F.2d 537 (1980).FN4 The Court of Appeals reasoned that the taxing power is an inherent at-
tribute of tribal sovereignty that has not been divested by any treaty or Act of Congress, in-
cluding the 1927 Act, 25 U.S.C. 398c. The court also found no Commerce Clause violation.
We granted certiorari, 449 U.S. 820, 101 S.Ct. 71, 66 L.Ed.2d 21 (1980), and we now affirm
the decision of the Court of Appeals.
FN4. Two judges dissented. Both argued that tribal sovereignty does not encompass
the power to tax non-Indian lessees, 617 F.2d, at 551-556 (Seth, C. J., dissenting); id.,
at 556-565 (Barrett, J., dissenting) (also arguing the tax violates the Commerce
Clause).
II
Petitioners argue, and the dissent agrees, that an Indian tribe's authority to tax non-Indians
who do business on the *137 reservation stems exclusively from its power to exclude such
persons from tribal lands. Because the Tribe did not initially condition the leases upon the
payment of a severance tax, petitioners assert that the Tribe is without authority to impose
such a tax at a later time. We disagree with the premise that the power to tax derives only
from the power to exclude. Even if that premise is accepted, however, we disagree with the
conclusion that the Tribe lacks the power to impose the severance tax.
A
[1][2] In Washington v. Confederated Tribes of Colville Indian Reservation, 447 U.S. 134,
100 S.Ct. 2069, 65 L.Ed.2d 10 (1980) (Colville), we addressed the Indian tribes' authority to
impose taxes on non-Indians doing business on the reservation. We held that [t]he power to
tax transactions occurring on trust lands and significantly involving a tribe or its members is a
fundamental attribute of sovereignty which the tribes retain unless divested of it by federal
law or necessary implication of their dependent status. Id., at 152, 100 S.Ct. at 2080-81. The
power to tax is an essential attribute of Indian sovereignty because it is a necessary instrument
of self-government and territorial management. This power enables a tribal government to

102 S.Ct. 894 Page 17
455 U.S. 130, 102 S.Ct. 894, 71 L.Ed.2d 21
(Cite as: 455 U.S. 130, 102 S.Ct. 894)
raise revenues for its essential services. The power does not derive solely from the Indian
tribe's power to exclude non-Indians from tribal lands. Instead, it derives from the tribe's gen-
eral authority, as sovereign, to control economic activity within its jurisdiction, and to defray
the cost of providing governmental services by requiring contributions from persons or enter-
prises engaged in economic activities within that jurisdiction. See, e.g., Gibbons v. Ogden, 9
Wheat. 1, 199, 6 L.Ed. 23 (1824).
**902 [3] The petitioners avail themselves of the substantial privilege of carrying on
business on the reservation. Mobil Oil Corp. v. Commissioner of Taxes, 445 U.S. 425, 437,
100 S.Ct. 1223, 1231, 63 L.Ed.2d 510 (1980); Wisconsin v. J. C. Penney Co., 311 U.S. 435,
444-445, 61 S.Ct. 246, 249-50, 85 L.Ed. 267 (1940). They benefit from the provision of police
protection and other governmental services, as well as from the advantages*138 of a civil-
ized society that are assured by the existence of tribal government. Exxon Corp. v. Wiscon-
sin Dept. of Revenue, 447 U.S. 207, 228, 100 S.Ct. 2109, 2122, 65 L.Ed.2d 66 (1980) (quoting
Japan Line, Ltd. v. County of Los Angeles, 441 U.S. 434, 445, 99 S.Ct. 1813, 1819-20, 60
L.Ed.2d 336 (1979)). Numerous other governmental entities levy a general revenue tax similar
to that imposed by the Jicarilla Tribe when they provide comparable services. Under these cir-
cumstances, there is nothing exceptional in requiring petitioners to contribute through taxes to
the general cost of tribal government.FN5 Cf. Commonwealth Edison Co. v. Montana, 453
U.S. 609, 624-629, 101 S.Ct. 2946, 2957-2960, 69 L.Ed.2d 884 (1981); id., at 647, 101 S.Ct.,
at 2969 (BLACKMUN, J., dissenting); Mobil Oil Corp. v. Commissioner of Taxes, supra, 445
U.S. at 436-437, 100 S.Ct. at 1231.
FN5. Through various Acts governing Indian tribes, Congress has expressed the pur-
pose of fostering tribal self-government. Colville, 447 U.S., at 155, 100 S.Ct., at
2081. We agree with Judge McKay's observation that [i]t simply does not make sense
to expect the tribes to carry out municipal functions approved and mandated by Con-
gress without being able to exercise at least minimal taxing powers, whether they take
the form of real estate taxes, leasehold taxes or severance taxes. 617 F.2d, at 550
(McKay, J., concurring).
[4] As we observed in Colville, supra, the tribe's interest in levying taxes on nonmembers
to raise revenues for essential governmental programs ... is strongest when the revenues are
derived from value generated on the reservation by activities involving the Tribes and when
the taxpayer is the recipient of tribal services. 447 U.S., at 156-157, 100 S.Ct., at 2082-83.
This surely is the case here. The mere fact that the government imposing the tax also enjoys
rents and royalties as the lessor of the mineral lands does not undermine the government's au-
thority to impose the tax. See infra, at 906-907. The royalty payments from the mineral leases
are paid to the Tribe in its role as partner in petitioners' commercial venture. The severance
tax, in contrast, is petitioners' contribution to the general cost of providing governmental ser-
vices. Commonwealth Edison Co. v. Montana, supra, at 623, 101 S.Ct., at 2956. State gov-
ernments commonly receive both royalty payments and severance taxes from lessees of miner-
al lands within their borders.
*139 Viewing the taxing power of Indian tribes as an essential instrument of self-
government and territorial management has been a shared assumption of all three branches of

102 S.Ct. 894 Page 18
455 U.S. 130, 102 S.Ct. 894, 71 L.Ed.2d 21
(Cite as: 455 U.S. 130, 102 S.Ct. 894)
the Federal Government. Cf. Colville, supra, 447 U.S., at 153, 100 S.Ct., at 2081. In Colville,
the Court relied in part on a 1934 opinion of the Solicitor for the Department of the Interior.
In this opinion, the Solicitor recognized that, in the absence of congressional action to the
contrary, the tribes' sovereign power to tax may be exercised over members of the tribe and
over nonmembers, so far as such nonmembers may accept privileges of trade, residence, etc.,
to which taxes may be attached as conditions. 447 U.S., at 153, 100 S.Ct., at 2081 (quoting
Powers of Indian Tribes, 55 I.D. 14, 46 (1934)). Colville further noted that official executive
pronouncements have repeatedly recognized that Indian tribes possess a broad measure of
civil jurisdiction over the activities of non-Indians on Indian reservation lands in which the
tribes have a significant interest ..., including jurisdiction to tax. 447 U.S., at 152-153, 100
S.Ct., at 2080-2081 (citing 23 Op.Atty.Gen. 214 (1900); 17 Op.Atty.Gen. 134 (1881); 7
Op.Atty.Gen. 174 **903 (1855)).FN6
FN6. Moreover, in its revision of the classic treatise on Indian Law, the Department of
the Interior advances the view that the Indian tribes' power to tax is not limited by the
power to exclude. See U.S. Solicitor for Dept. of Interior, Federal Indian Law 438
(1958) (The power to tax does not depend upon the power to remove and has been up-
held where there was no power in the tribe to remove the taxpayer from the tribal juris-
diction) (footnote omitted). See also F. Cohen, Handbook of Federal Indian Law 142
(1942) (One of the powers essential to the maintenance of any government is the
power to levy taxes. That this power is an inherent attribute of tribal sovereignty which
continues unless withdrawn or limited by treaty or by act of Congress is a proposition
which has never been successfully disputed) (footnote omitted).
Similarly, Congress has acknowledged that the tribal power to tax is one of the tools ne-
cessary to self-government and territorial control. As early as 1879, the Senate Judiciary*140
Committee acknowledged the validity of a tax imposed by the Chickasaw Nation on non-
Indians legitimately within its territory:
We have considered [Indian tribes] as invested with the right of self-government and jur-
isdiction over the persons and property within the limits of the territory they occupy, except so
far as that jurisdiction has been restrained and abridged by treaty or act of Congress. Subject
to the supervisory control of the Federal Government, they may enact the requisite legislation
to maintain peace and good order, improve their condition, establish school systems, and aid
their people in their efforts to acquire the arts of civilized life; and they undoubtedly possess
the inherent right to resort to taxation to raise the necessary revenue for the accomplishment
of these vitally important objects -a right not in any sense derived from the Government of the
United States. S.Rep.No.698, 45th Cong., 3d Sess., 1-2 (1879) (emphasis added).
[5] Thus, the views of the three federal branches of government, as well as general prin-
ciples of taxation, confirm that Indian tribes enjoy authority to finance their governmental ser-
vices through taxation of non-Indians who benefit from those services. Indeed, the conception
of Indian sovereignty that this Court has consistently reaffirmed permits no other conclusion.
As we observed in United States v. Mazurie, 419 U.S. 544, 557, 95 S.Ct. 710, 711, 42 L.Ed.2d
706 (1975), Indian tribes within Indian country are a good deal more than private, volun-
tary organizations. They are unique aggregations possessing attributes of sovereignty over

102 S.Ct. 894 Page 19
455 U.S. 130, 102 S.Ct. 894, 71 L.Ed.2d 21
(Cite as: 455 U.S. 130, 102 S.Ct. 894)
both their members and their territory. Ibid. See, e.g., Worcester v. Georgia, 6 Pet. 515, 557,
8 L.Ed. 483 (1832); Iron Crow v. Oglala Sioux Tribe of Pine Ridge Reservation, 231 F.2d 89,
92, 99 (CA8 1956); Crabtree v. Madden, 54 F. 426, 428-429 (CA8 1893); Cohen, The Span-
ish Origin of Indian Rights in the Law of the United States, in The Legal Conscience 230, 234
(L. Cohen ed. *141 1960). Adhering to this understanding, we conclude that the Tribe's au-
thority to tax non-Indians who conduct business on the reservation does not simply derive
from the Tribe's power to exclude such persons, but is an inherent power necessary to tribal
self-government and territorial management.
[6] Of course, the Tribe's authority to tax nonmembers is subject to constraints not im-
posed on other governmental entities: the Federal Government can take away this power, and
the Tribe must obtain the approval of the Secretary before any tax on nonmembers can take
effect. These additional constraints minimize potential concern that Indian tribes will exercise
the power to tax in an unfair or unprincipled manner, and ensure that any exercise of the tribal
power to tax will be consistent with national policies.
[7] We are not persuaded by the dissent's attempt to limit an Indian tribe's authority to tax
non-Indians by asserting that its only source is the tribe's power to exclude such persons from
tribal lands. Limiting the tribes' authority to tax in this manner contradicts the conception that
Indian**904 tribes are domestic, dependent nations, as well as the common understanding that
the sovereign taxing power is a tool for raising revenue necessary to cover the costs of gov-
ernment.
[8] Nor are we persuaded by the dissent that three early decisions upholding tribal power
to tax nonmembers support this limitation. Post, at 917-920, discussing Morris v. Hitchcock,
194 U.S. 384, 24 S.Ct. 712, 48 L.Ed. 1030 (1904); Buster v. Wright, 135 F. 947 (CA8 1905),
appeal dism'd, 203 U.S. 599, 27 S.Ct. 777, 51 L.Ed. 334 (1906); Maxey v. Wright, 3 Ind.T.
243, 247-250, 54 S.W. 807, 809 (Ct.App.Ind.T.), aff'd, 105 F. 1003 (CA8 1900). In discussing
these cases, the dissent correctly notes that a hallmark of Indian sovereignty is the power to
exclude non-Indians from Indian lands, and that this power provides a basis for tribal author-
ity to tax. None of these cases, however, establishes that the authority to tax derives solely
from the power to exclude. Instead, these cases demonstrate that a tribe has the power to tax
nonmembers only to the extent the nonmember enjoys the *142 privilege of trade or other
activity on the reservation to which the tribe can attach a tax. This limitation on tribal taxing
authority exists not because the tribe has the power to exclude nonmembers, but because the
limited authority that a tribe may exercise over nonmembers does not arise until the nonmem-
ber enters the tribal jurisdiction. We do not question that there is a significant territorial com-
ponent to tribal power: a tribe has no authority over a nonmember until the nonmember enters
tribal lands or conducts business with the tribe. However, we do not believe that this territorial
component to Indian taxing power, which is discussed in these early cases, means that the tri-
bal authority to tax derives solely from the tribe's power to exclude nonmembers from tribal
lands.
Morris v. Hitchcock, for example, suggests that the taxing power is a legitimate instrument
for raising revenue, and that a tribe may exercise this power over non-Indians who receive
privileges from the tribe, such as the right to trade on Indian land. In Morris, the Court ap-

102 S.Ct. 894 Page 20
455 U.S. 130, 102 S.Ct. 894, 71 L.Ed.2d 21
(Cite as: 455 U.S. 130, 102 S.Ct. 894)
proved a tax on cattle grazing and relied in part on a Report to the Senate by the Committee
on the Judiciary, which found no legal defect in previous tribal tax legislation having a two-
fold object-to prevent the intrusion of unauthorized persons into the territory of the Chickasaw
Nation, and to raise revenue. 194 U.S., at 389, 24 S.Ct., at 714 (emphasis added). In Maxey
v. Wright, the question of Indian sovereignty was not even raised: the decision turned on the
construction of a treaty denying the Tribe any governing or jurisdictional authority over non-
members. 3 Ind.T., at 247-248, 54 S.W., at 809.FN7
FN7. The governing treaty in Maxey v. Wright restricted the tribal right of self-
government and jurisdiction to members of the Creek or Seminole Tribes. The court
relied, at least in part, on opinions of the Attorney General interpreting this treaty. For
example, one such opinion stated that, whatever the meaning of the clause limiting to
tribal members the Tribes' unrestricted rights of self-government and jurisdiction, it
did
not limit the right of these tribes to pass upon the question, who ... shall share their
occupancy, and upon what terms. That is a question which all private persons are al-
lowed to decide for themselves; and even wild animals, not men, have a certain re-
spect paid to the instinct which in this respect they share with man. The serious
words jurisdiction and self-government are scarcely appropriate to the right of a
hotel keeper to prescribe rules and charges for persons who become his fellow occu-
pants. 3 Ind.T., at 250, 54 S.W., at 809 (quoting 18 Op.Atty.Gen. 4, 36, 37
(1884)).
The court, as well as the opinion of the Attorney General, found that the Tribes'
natural instinct to set terms on occupancy was unaltered by the treaty. Neither the
court nor the Attorney General addressed the scope of Indian sovereignty when un-
limited by treaty; instead, they identified a tribe's right, as a social group, to exclude
intruders and place conditions on their occupancy. The court's dependence on this
reasoning hardly bears on the more general question posed here: what is the source
of the Indian tribes' sovereign power to tax absent a restriction by treaty or other fed-
eral law?
*143 Finally, the decision in Buster v. Wright actually undermines the theory that the
tribes' taxing authority derives solely from the power to exclude non-Indians from tribal**905
lands. Under this theory, a non-Indian who establishes lawful presence in Indian territory
could avoid paying a tribal tax by claiming that no residual portion of the power to exclude
supports the tax. This result was explicitly rejected in Buster v. Wright. In Buster, deeds to in-
dividual lots in Indian territory had been granted to non-Indian residents, and cities and towns
had been incorporated. As a result, Congress had expressly prohibited the Tribe from remov-
ing these non-Indian residents. Even though the ownership of land and the creation of local
governments by non-Indians established their legitimate presence on Indian land, the court
held that the Tribe retained its power to tax. The court concluded that [n]either the United
States, nor a state, nor any other sovereignty loses the power to govern the people within its
borders by the existence of towns and cities therein endowed with the usual powers of muni-
cipalities, nor by the ownership nor occupancy of the land within its territorial jurisdiction by

102 S.Ct. 894 Page 21
455 U.S. 130, 102 S.Ct. 894, 71 L.Ed.2d 21
(Cite as: 455 U.S. 130, 102 S.Ct. 894)
citizens or foreigners. *144135 F., at 952 (emphasis added).FN8 This result confirms that the
Tribe's authority to tax derives not from its power to exclude, but from its power to govern
and to raise revenues to pay for the costs of government.
FN8. Both the classic treatise on Indian Law and its subsequent revision by the Depart-
ment of the Interior, see n. 6, supra, agree with this reading of Buster v. Wright. Feder-
al Indian Law, supra, n. 6, at 438; Cohen, supra, n. 6, at 142 (both citing Buster v.
Wright for the proposition that the power to tax is an inherent sovereign power not de-
pendent on the power to exclude).
We choose not to embrace a new restriction on the extent of the tribal authority to tax,
which is based on a questionable interpretation of three early cases. Instead, based on the
views of each of the federal branches, general principles of taxation, and the conception of In-
dian tribes as domestic, dependent nations, we conclude that the Tribe has the authority to im-
pose a severance tax on the mining activities of petitioners as part of its power to govern and
to pay for the costs of self-government.
B
[9][10][11][12][13] Alternatively, if we accept the argument, advanced by petitioners and
the dissent, that the Tribe's authority to tax derives solely from its power to exclude non-
Indians from the reservation, we conclude that the Tribe has the authority to impose the sever-
ance tax challenged here. Nonmembers who lawfully enter tribal lands remain subject to the
tribe's power to exclude them. This power necessarily includes the lesser power to place con-
ditions on entry, on continued presence, or on reservation conduct, such as a tax on business
activities conducted on the reservation. When a tribe grants a non-Indian the right to be on In-
dian land, the tribe agrees not to exercise its ultimate power to oust the non-Indian as long as
the non-Indian complies with the initial conditions of entry. However, it does not follow that
the lawful property right to be on Indian land also immunizes the non-Indian from the tribe's
exercise of its lesser-included power to tax or to *145 place other conditions on the non-In-
dian's conduct or continued presence on the reservation.FN9 A nonmember who enters the
jurisdiction of the tribe remains subject to the risk that the tribe will later exercise its sover-
eign power. The fact that the tribe chooses not to exercise its power to tax when it initially
grants a non-Indian entry onto the reservation does not permanently divest the tribe of its au-
thority to impose such a tax.FN10
FN9. See also Barta v. Oglala Sioux Tribe of Pine Ridge Reservation, 259 F.2d 553
(CA8 1958) (lessees of tribal lands subject to Indian tax on use of land).
FN10. Here, the leases extend for as long as minerals are produced in paying quantit-
ies, in other words, until the resources are depleted. Thus, under the dissent's approach,
the Tribe would never have the power to tax petitioners regardless of the financial bur-
den to the Tribe of providing and maintaining governmental services for the benefit of
petitioners.
Petitioners argue that their leaseholds entitle them to enter the reservation and **906 ex-
empt them from further exercises of the Tribe's sovereign authority. Similarly, the dissent as-

102 S.Ct. 894 Page 22
455 U.S. 130, 102 S.Ct. 894, 71 L.Ed.2d 21
(Cite as: 455 U.S. 130, 102 S.Ct. 894)
serts that the Tribe has lost the power to tax petitioners' mining activities because it has leased
to them the use of the mineral lands and such rights of access to the reservation as might be
necessary to enjoy the leases. Post, at 927-929.FN11 However, this conclusion is not com-
pelled by linking the taxing power to the power to exclude. Instead, it is based on additional
assumptions and confusions about the consequences of the commercial arrangement between
petitioners and the Tribe.
FN11. But see Buster v. Wright, 135 F., at 958:
The ultimate conclusion of the whole matter is that purchasers of lots in town sites
in towns or cities within the original limits of the Creek Nation, who are in lawful
possession of their lots, are still subject to the laws of that nation prescribing permit
taxes for the exercise by noncitizens of the privilege of conducting business in those
towns....
Most important, petitioners and the dissent confuse the Tribe's role as commercial partner
with its role as sovereign.*146 FN12 This confusion relegates the powers of sovereignty to
the bargaining process undertaken in each of the sovereign's commercial agreements. It is one
thing to find that the Tribe has agreed to sell the right to use the land and take from it valuable
minerals; it is quite another to find that the Tribe has abandoned its sovereign powers simply
because it has not expressly reserved them through a contract.
FN12. In contrast, the 1958 treatise on Indian law written by the United States Solicit-
or for the Department of the Interior recognized and distinguished the scope of these
two roles when it embraced as the present state of the law the following summary:
Over tribal lands, the tribe has the rights of a landowner as well as the rights of a
local government, dominion as well as sovereignty. But over all the lands of the re-
servation, whether owned by the tribe, by members thereof, or by outsiders, the tribe
has the sovereign power of determining the conditions upon which persons shall be
permitted to enter its domain, to reside therein, and to do business, provided only
such determination is consistent with applicable Federal laws and does not infringe
any vested rights of persons now occupying reservation lands under lawful author-
ity. Federal Indian Law, supra, n.6, at 439 (quoting Solicitor's Opinion of Oct. 25,
1934) (emphasis added).
See Cohen, supra, n.6, at 143.
Confusing these two results denigrates Indian sovereignty. Indeed, the dissent apparently
views the tribal power to exclude, as well as the derivative authority to tax, as merely the
power possessed by any individual landowner or any social group to attach conditions, includ-
ing a tax or fee, to the entry by a stranger onto private land or into the social group, and not
as a sovereign power. The dissent does pay lipservice to the established views that Indian
tribes retain those fundamental attributes of sovereignty, including the power to tax transac-
tions that occur on tribal lands, which have not been divested by Congress or by necessary im-
plication of the tribe's dependent status, see Colville, 447 U.S., at 152, 100 S.Ct., at 2080, and
that tribes are a good deal more than private, voluntary organizations. United States v.

102 S.Ct. 894 Page 23
455 U.S. 130, 102 S.Ct. 894, 71 L.Ed.2d 21
(Cite as: 455 U.S. 130, 102 S.Ct. 894)
Mazurie, 419 U.S., at 557, 95 S.Ct., at 718. However, in arguing that the Tribe somehow
lost its power to tax petitioners by not including*147 a taxing provision in the original
leases or otherwise notifying petitioners that the Tribe retained and might later exercise its
sovereign right to tax them, the dissent attaches little significance to the sovereign nature of
the tribal authority to tax, and it obviously views tribal authority as little more than a
landowner's contractual right. This overly restrictive view of tribal sovereignty is further re-
flected in the dissent's refusal to apply established principles for determining whether other
governmental bodies have waived a sovereign power through contract. See post, at 928-929,
n. 50. See also infra, at 907.
[14][15][16] Moreover, the dissent implies that the power to tax depends on the consent of
the taxed as well as on the Tribe's power to exclude non-Indians. Whatever place consent may
have in contractual matters and in the creation of democratic governments, it has little if any
role in measuring the validity of an exercise of **907 legitimate sovereign authority. Requir-
ing the consent of the entrant deposits in the hands of the excludable non-Indian the source of
the tribe's power, when the power instead derives from sovereignty itself. Only the Federal
Government may limit a tribe's exercise of its sovereign authority. E.g., United States v.
Wheeler, 435 U.S. 313, 322, 98 S.Ct. 1079, 1085, 55 L.Ed.2d 303 (1978).FN13 Indian sover-
eignty is not conditioned on the assent of a nonmember; to the contrary, the nonmember's
presence and conduct on Indian lands are conditioned by the limitations the tribe may choose
to impose.
FN13. See also P. Maxfield, M. Dieterich, & F. Trelease, Natural Resources Law on
American Indian Lands 4-6 (1977). Federal limitations on tribal sovereignty can also
occur when the exercise of tribal sovereignty would be inconsistent with overriding na-
tional interests. See Colville, 447 U.S., at 153, 100 S.Ct., at 2081. This concern is not
presented here. See ibid.
[17][18][19] Viewed in this light, the absence of a reference to the tax in the leases them-
selves hardly impairs the Tribe's authority to impose the tax. Contractual arrangements remain
subject to subsequent legislation by the presiding sovereign. See, e.g., *148Veix v. Sixth Ward
Building & Loan Assn. of Newark, 310 U.S. 32, 60 S.Ct. 792, 84 L.Ed. 1061 (1940); Home
Building & Loan Assn. v. Blaisdell, 290 U.S. 398, 54 S.Ct. 231, 78 L.Ed. 413 (1934). Even
where the contract at issue requires payment of a royalty for a license or franchise issued by
the governmental entity, the government's power to tax remains unless it has been specific-
ally surrendered in terms which admit of no other reasonable interpretation. St. Louis v.
United R. Co., 210 U.S. 266, 280, 28 S.Ct. 630, 634, 52 L.Ed. 1054 (1908).
[20][21] To state that Indian sovereignty is different than that of Federal, State, or local
Governments, see post, at 928-929, n. 50, does not justify ignoring the principles announced
by this Court for determining whether a sovereign has waived its taxing authority in cases in-
volving city, state, and federal taxes imposed under similar circumstances. Each of these gov-
ernments has different attributes of sovereignty, which also may derive from different sources.
These differences, however, do not alter the principles for determining whether any of these
governments has waived a sovereign power through contract, and we perceive no principled
reason for holding that the different attributes of Indian sovereignty require different treatment

102 S.Ct. 894 Page 24
455 U.S. 130, 102 S.Ct. 894, 71 L.Ed.2d 21
(Cite as: 455 U.S. 130, 102 S.Ct. 894)
in this regard. Without regard to its source, sovereign power, even when unexercised, is an en-
during presence that governs all contracts subject to the sovereign's jurisdiction, and will re-
main intact unless surrendered in unmistakable terms.
[22] No claim is asserted in this litigation, nor could one be, that petitioners' leases contain
the clear and unmistakable surrender of taxing power required for its extinction. We could
find a waiver of the Tribe's taxing power only if we inferred it from silence in the leases. To
presume that a sovereign forever waives the right to exercise one of its sovereign powers un-
less it expressly reserves the right to exercise that power in a commercial agreement turns the
concept of sovereignty on its head, and we do not adopt this analysis.FN14
FN14. Petitioners and the dissent also argue that we should infer a waiver of the taxing
power from silence in the Tribe's original Constitution. Although it is true that the
Constitution in force when petitioners signed their leases did not include a provision
specifically authorizing a severance tax, neither the Tribe's Constitution nor the Feder-
al Constitution is the font of any sovereign power of the Indian tribes. E.g., Iron Crow
v. Oglala Sioux Tribe of Pine Ridge Reservation, 231 F.2d 89, 94 (CA8 1956); Buster
v. Wright, 135 F., at 950. Because the Tribe retains all inherent attributes of sover-
eignty that have not been divested by the Federal Government, the proper inference
from silence on this point is that the sovereign power to tax remains intact. The Tribe's
Constitution was amended to authorize the tax before the tax was imposed, and this is
the critical event necessary to effectuate the tax. See Barta v. Oglala Sioux Tribe of
Pine Ridge Reservation, 259 F.2d, at 554, 556; Iron Crow v. Oglala Sioux Tribe of
Pine Ridge Reservation, supra, at 99.
*149 **908 C
The Tribe has the inherent power to impose the severance tax on petitioners, whether this
power derives from the Tribe's power of self-government or from its power to exclude. Be-
cause Congress may limit tribal sovereignty, we now review petitioners' argument that Con-
gress, when it enacted two federal Acts governing Indians and various pieces of federal en-
ergy legislation, deprived the Tribe of its authority to impose the severance tax.
[23] In Colville, we concluded that the widely held understanding within the Federal
Government has always been that federal law to date has not worked a divestiture of Indian
taxing power. 447 U.S., at 152, 100 S.Ct., at 2080 (emphasis added). Moreover, we noted
that [n]o federal statute cited to us shows any congressional departure from this view. Id., at
153, 100 S.Ct., at 2081. Likewise, petitioners can cite to no statute that specifically divests the
Tribe of its power to impose the severance tax on their mining activities. Instead, petitioners
argue that Congress implicitly took away this power when it enacted the Acts and various
pieces of legislation on which petitioners rely. Before reviewing this argument, we reiterate
here our admonition in Santa Clara Pueblo v. Martinez, 436 U.S. 49, 60, 98 S.Ct. 1670, 1678,
56 L.Ed.2d 106 (1978): a proper respect both for tribal sovereignty itself and for the plenary
authority of Congress in this area cautions that we tread lightly in the absence of clear indica-
tions of legislative intent.
*150 [24] Petitioners argue that Congress pre-empted the Tribe's power to impose a sever-

102 S.Ct. 894 Page 25
455 U.S. 130, 102 S.Ct. 894, 71 L.Ed.2d 21
(Cite as: 455 U.S. 130, 102 S.Ct. 894)
ance tax when it enacted the 1938 Act, 25 U.S.C. 396a-396g. In essence, petitioners argue
that the tax constitutes an additional burden on lessees that is inconsistent with the Act's regu-
latory scheme for leasing and developing oil and gas reserves on Indian land. This Act, and
the regulations promulgated by the Department of the Interior for its enforcement, establish
the procedures to be followed for leasing oil and gas interests on tribal lands. However, the
proviso to 25 U.S.C. 396b states that the foregoing provisions shall in no manner restrict
the right of tribes ... to lease lands for mining purposes ... in accordance with the provisions of
any constitution and charter adopted by any Indian tribe pursuant to sections 461, 462, 463,
[464-475, 476-478], and 479 of this title (emphasis added).FN15 Therefore, this Act does
not prohibit the Tribe from imposing a severance tax on petitioners' mining activities pursuant
to its Revised Constitution, when both the Revised Constitution and the ordinance authorizing
the tax are approved by the Secretary.FN16
FN15. The Secretary has implemented the substance of this proviso by the following
regulation:
The regulations in this part may be superseded by the provisions of any tribal con-
stitution, bylaw or charter issued pursuant to the Indian Reorganization Act of June
18, 1934 (48 Stat. 984; 25 U.S.C. 461-479), ... or by ordinance, resolution or other
action authorized under such constitution, bylaw or charter. The regulations in this
part, in so far as they are not so superseded, shall apply to leases made by organized
tribes if the validity of the lease depends upon the approval of the Secretary of the
Interior. 25 CFR 171.29 (1980).
FN16. In arguing that the 1938 Act was intended to pre-empt the severance tax, peti-
tioners attach great significance to the Secretary's approval of the leases. Curiously,
they attach virtually no significance to the fact that the Secretary also approved the tax
ordinance that they challenge here.
[25][26] Petitioners also assert that the 1927 Act, 25 U.S.C. 398a-398e, divested the
Tribe's taxing power. We disagree. The 1927 Act permits state taxation of mineral lessees
*151 on Executive Order reservations, but it indicates no change in the taxing power of the af-
fected tribes. See 25 U.S.C. 398c. Without mentioning the tribal authority to tax, the Act au-
thorizes state taxation of royalties from mineral production on all Indian lands. Petitioners ar-
gue that the Act transferred the Indian power to tax mineral production to the States in ex-
change for the royalties assured**909 the tribes. This claim not only lacks any supporting
evidence in the legislative history, it also deviates from settled principles of taxation: different
sovereigns can enjoy powers to tax the same transactions. Thus, the mere existence of state
authority to tax does not deprive the Indian tribe of its power to tax. Fort Mojave Tribe v.
County of San Bernardino, 543 F.2d 1253 (CA9 1976), cert. denied, 430 U.S. 983, 97 S.Ct.
1678, 52 L.Ed.2d 377 (1977). Cf. Colville, 447 U.S., at 158, 100 S.Ct., at 2084 (There is no
direct conflict between the state and tribal schemes, since each government is free to impose
its taxes without ousting the other).FN17
FN17. The Tribe argues that the 1927 Act granting the States the power to tax mineral
production on Indian land is inapplicable because the leases at issue here were signed

102 S.Ct. 894 Page 26
455 U.S. 130, 102 S.Ct. 894, 71 L.Ed.2d 21
(Cite as: 455 U.S. 130, 102 S.Ct. 894)
pursuant to the 1938 Act. The 1938 Act, which makes uniform the laws applicable to
leasing mineral rights on tribal lands, does not contain a grant of power to the States
comparable to that found in the 1927 Act. As a result, the Tribe asserts that the State of
New Mexico has no power to tax the production under petitioners' leases with the
Tribe. Because the State of New Mexico is not a party to this suit, the Court of Ap-
peals did not reach this issue. See 617 F.2d, at 547-548, n. 5. For this reason, and be-
cause we conclude that the 1927 Act did not affect the Tribe's authority to tax, we like-
wise do not reach this issue.
[27] Finally, petitioners contend that tribal taxation of oil and gas conflicts with national
energy policies, and therefore the tribal tax is pre-empted by federal law. Again, petitioners
cite no specific federal statute restricting Indian sovereignty. Nor do they explain why state
taxation of the same type of activity escapes the asserted conflict with federal policy. Cf.
Commonwealth Edison Co. v. Montana, 453 U.S. 609, 101 S.Ct. 2946, 69 L.Ed.2d 884 (1981).
Indeed, rather than forbidding tribal severance taxes, Congress has included taxes imposed by
an Indian *152 tribe in its definition of costs that may be recovered under federal energy pri-
cing regulations. Natural Gas Policy Act of 1978, Pub.L. 95-621, 110(a), (c)(1), 92 Stat.
3368, 15 U.S.C. 3320(a), (c)(1) (1976 ed., Supp.IV). Although this inclusion may not re-
flect Congress' view with respect to the source of a tribe's power to impose a severance tax,
FN18 it surely indicates that imposing such a tax would not contravene federal energy policy
and that the tribal authority to do so is not implicitly divested by that Act.
FN18. The statute provides that Indian severance taxes may be recovered through fed-
eral energy pricing. However, the legislative history indicates that Congress took no
position on the source of the Indian tribes' power to impose the tax in the first place:
While severance taxes which may be imposed by an Indian tribe are to be treated in
the same manner as State imposed severance taxes, the conferees do not intend to
prejudge the outcome of the cases on appeal before the Tenth Circuit Court of Ap-
peals respecting the right of Indian tribes to impose taxes on persons or organizations
other than Indians who are engaged in business activities on Indian reservations. The
outcome of the cases on appeal will determine the legality of imposing such taxes.
S.Conf.Rep.No.95-1126, p. 91 (1978); H.R.Conf.Rep.No.95-1752, p. 91 (1978),
U.S.Code Cong. & Admin.News 1978, p. 8800.
[28] We find no clear indications that Congress has implicitly deprived the Tribe of its
power to impose the severance tax. In any event, if there were ambiguity on this point, the
doubt would benefit the Tribe, for [a]mbiguities in federal law have been construed gener-
ously in order to comport with ... traditional notions of sovereignty and with the federal policy
of encouraging tribal independence. White Mountain Apache Tribe v. Bracker, 448 U.S. 136,
143-144, 100 S.Ct. 2578, 2583-2584, 65 L.Ed.2d 665 (1980). Accordingly, we find that the
Federal Government has not divested the Tribe of its inherent authority to tax mining activit-
ies on its land, whether this authority derives from the Tribe's power of self-government or
from its power to exclude.
III

102 S.Ct. 894 Page 27
455 U.S. 130, 102 S.Ct. 894, 71 L.Ed.2d 21
(Cite as: 455 U.S. 130, 102 S.Ct. 894)
Finding no defect in the Tribe's exercise of its taxing power, we now address petitioners'
contention that the severance tax violates the negative implications of the **910 Commerce
Clause because it taxes an activity that is an integral *153 part of the flow of commerce, dis-
criminates against interstate commerce, and imposes a multiple burden on interstate com-
merce. At the outset, we note that reviewing tribal action under the Interstate Commerce
Clause is not without conceptual difficulties. E.g., nn. 21 and 24, infra. Apparently recogniz-
ing these difficulties, the Solicitor General, on behalf of the Secretary, argues that the lan-
guage,FN19 the structure, and the purposes of the Commerce Clause support the conclusion
that the Commerce Clause does not, of its own force, limit Indian tribes in their dealings with
non-Indians. Brief for Secretary of Interior 35-40. The Solicitor General reasons that the
Framers did not intend the courts, through the Commerce Clause, to impose their own views
of the proper relationship between Indians and non-Indians and to strike down measures adop-
ted by a tribe with which the political departments of government had not seen fit to dis-
agree. Id., at 39. Instead, where tribal legislation is inimical to the national welfare, the Soli-
citor asserts that the Framers contemplated that the remedies would be the negotiation or rene-
gotiation of treaties, the enactment of legislation governing trade and other relations, or the
exertion of superior force by the United States Government. Id., at 38-39. Using similar reas-
oning, the Solicitor suggests that if the Commerce Clause does impose restrictions on tribal
activity, those restrictions must arise from the Indian Commerce Clause, and not its interstate
counterpart. Id., at 40-43.
FN19. The Commerce Clause empowers Congress [t]o regulate Commerce with for-
eign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes. U.S.Const.,
Art. I, 8, cl. 3 (emphasis added).
To date, however, this Court has relied on the Indian Commerce Clause as a shield to pro-
tect Indian tribes from state *154 and local interference, and has not relied on the Clause to
authorize tribal regulation of commerce without any constitutional restraints. We see no need
to break new ground in this area today: even if we assume that tribal action is subject to the
limitations of the Interstate Commerce Clause, this tax does not violate the negative implica-
tions of that Clause.
A
[29][30] A state tax may violate the negative implications of the Interstate Commerce
Clause by unduly burdening or discriminating against interstate commerce. See, e.g., Com-
monwealth Edison Co. v. Montana, 453 U.S. 609, 101 S.Ct. 2946, 69 L.Ed.2d 884 (1981);
Complete Auto Transit, Inc. v. Brady, 430 U.S. 274, 97 S.Ct. 1076, 51 L.Ed.2d 326 (1977).
Judicial review of state taxes under the Interstate Commerce Clause is intended to ensure that
States do not disrupt or burden interstate commerce when Congress' power remains unexer-
cised: it protects the free flow of commerce, and thereby safeguards Congress' latent power
from encroachment by the several States.
[31][32] However, we only engage in this review when Congress has not acted or purpor-
ted to act. See, e.g., Prudential Insurance Co. v. Benjamin, 328 U.S. 408, 421-427, 66 S.Ct.
1142, 1150-1153, 90 L.Ed. 1342 (1946). Once Congress acts, courts are not free to review
state taxes or other regulations under the dormant Commerce Clause. When Congress has

102 S.Ct. 894 Page 28
455 U.S. 130, 102 S.Ct. 894, 71 L.Ed.2d 21
(Cite as: 455 U.S. 130, 102 S.Ct. 894)
struck the balance it deems appropriate, the courts are no longer needed to prevent States from
burdening commerce, and it matters not that the courts would invalidate the state tax or regu-
lation under the Commerce Clause in the absence of congressional action. See Prudential In-
surance Co. v. Benjamin, supra, at 431, 66 S.Ct. at 1155-56.FN20 Courts are *155 final arbit-
ers under **911 the Commerce Clause only when Congress has not acted. See Japan Line,
Ltd. v. County of Los Angeles, 441 U.S., at 454, 99 S.Ct., at 1824.
FN20. In Prudential Insurance Co. v. Benjamin, this Court refused to invalidate a
South Carolina tax on out-of-state insurance companies despite appellant's contention
that the tax impermissibly burdened interstate commerce. The Court refused to enter-
tain appellant's argument because Congress, in passing the McCarran-Ferguson Act,
had provided that silence on the part of the Congress shall not be construed to impose
any barrier to the regulation or taxation of [the business of insurance] by the several
States. 59 Stat. 33, 15 U.S.C. 1011.
[33] Here, Congress has affirmatively acted by providing a series of federal checkpoints
that must be cleared before a tribal tax can take effect. FN21 Under the Indian Reorganization
Act, 25 U.S.C. 476, 477, a tribe must obtain approval from the Secretary before it adopts or
revises its constitution to announce its intention to tax nonmembers. Further, before the ordin-
ance imposing the severance tax challenged here could take effect, the Tribe was required
again to obtain approval from the Secretary. See Revised Constitution of the Jicarilla Tribe,
Art. XI, 1(e), 2. Cf. 25 U.S.C. 476, 477; 25 CFR 171.29 (1980) (implementing the
proviso to 25 U.S.C. 369b, quoted in n. 15, supra).
FN21. Although Congress has not expressly announced that Indian taxes do not
threaten its latent power to regulate interstate commerce, it is unclear how Congress
could articulate that intention any more convincingly than it has done here. In contrast
to when Congress acts with respect to the States, when Congress acts with respect to
the Indian tribes, it generally does so pursuant to its authority under the Indian Com-
merce Clause, or by virtue of its superior position over the tribes, not pursuant to its
authority under the Interstate Commerce Clause. This is but one of the difficulties in-
herent in reviewing under the Interstate Commerce Clause both tribal action and con-
gressional action regulating the tribes. Therefore, in determining whether Congress has
acted to preclude judicial review, we do not find it significant that the congressional
action here was not taken pursuant to the Interstate Commerce Clause.
As we noted earlier, the severance tax challenged by petitioners was enacted in accordance
with this congressional scheme. Both the Tribe's Revised Constitution and the challenged tax
ordinance received the requisite approval from the Secretary. This course of events fulfilled
the administrative process established by Congress to monitor such exercises of tribal author-
ity. As a result, this tribal tax comes to us in a *156 posture significantly different from a
challenged state tax, which does not need specific federal approval to take effect, and which
therefore requires, in the absence of congressional ratification, judicial review to ensure that it
does not unduly burden or discriminate against interstate commerce. Judicial review of the In-
dian tax measure, in contrast, would duplicate the administrative review called for by the con-
gressional scheme.

102 S.Ct. 894 Page 29
455 U.S. 130, 102 S.Ct. 894, 71 L.Ed.2d 21
(Cite as: 455 U.S. 130, 102 S.Ct. 894)
[34] Finally, Congress is well aware that Indian tribes impose mineral severance taxes
such as the one challenged by petitioners. See Natural Gas Policy Act of 1978, 15 U.S.C.
3320(a), (c)(1) (1976 ed., Supp.IV). Congress, of course, retains plenary power to limit tribal
taxing authority or to alter the current scheme under which the tribes may impose taxes.
However, it is not our function nor our prerogative to strike down a tax that has traveled
through the precise channels established by Congress, and has obtained the specific approval
of the Secretary.
B
The tax challenged here would survive judicial scrutiny under the Interstate Commerce
Clause, even if such scrutiny were necessary. In Complete Auto Transit, Inc. v. Brady, supra,
430 U.S. at 279, 97 S.Ct. at 1079, we held that a state tax on activities connected to interstate
commerce is sustainable if it is applied to an activity with a substantial nexus with the taxing
State, is fairly apportioned, does not discriminate against interstate commerce, and is fairly re-
lated to the services provided by the State. Petitioners do not question that the tax on the sev-
erance of minerals from the mines FN22 meets the first and the *157 **912 second tests: the
mining activities taxed pursuant to the ordinance occur entirely on reservation land. Further-
more, petitioners do not challenge the tax on the ground that the amount of the tax is not fairly
related to the services provided by the Tribe. See Supplemental Brief for Petitioners in No.
80-15, pp. 11, 17-20.FN23
FN22. Petitioners initially contend that the ordinance taxes the transportation of the
minerals from the reservation, not their severance from the mines. As a result, they ar-
gue that the ordinance impermissibly burdens interstate commerce by taxing the move-
ment in commerce itself, which is not a local event. The tax, by its terms, applies to re-
sources that are produced on the Jicarilla Apache Tribe Reservation and sold or trans-
ported off the reservation. App. 39. The Tribe explains that this language was used
because no sale occurs prior to the transportation off the reservation. The Tribe's tax is
due at the time of severance. Id., at 38. Therefore, we agree with the Court of Appeals
that the taxable event defined by the ordinance is the removal of minerals from the
soil, not their transportation from the reservation. See 617 F.2d, at 546.
FN23. The Court of Appeals noted that, because the lessees chose not to build a factual
foundation to challenge the tax on this ground, there was no basis on which to find that
the tax was not fairly related to the services provided by the Tribe. See id., at 545, n. 4.
Indeed, when the Tribe attempted to introduce at trial evidence of the services it had
provided to establish this relationship, the District Court rejected this evidence upon
petitioners' objection that such evidence was irrelevant to their challenge. Brief for Re-
spondent Jicarilla Apache Tribe 7-8; 6 Record 278-290, 294, 300-308.
[35][36] Instead, petitioners focus their attack on the third factor, and argue that the tax
discriminates against interstate commerce. In essence, petitioners argue that the language
sold or transported off the reservation exempts from taxation minerals sold on the reserva-
tion, kept on the reservation for use by individual members of the Tribe, and minerals taken
by the Tribe on the reservation as in-kind royalty. Although petitioners admit that no sales
have occurred on the reservation to date, they argue that the Tribe might induce private in-

102 S.Ct. 894 Page 30
455 U.S. 130, 102 S.Ct. 894, 71 L.Ed.2d 21
(Cite as: 455 U.S. 130, 102 S.Ct. 894)
dustry to locate on the reservation to take advantage of this allegedly discriminatory taxing
policy. We do not accept petitioners' arguments; instead, we agree with the Tribe, the Solicitor
General, and the Court of Appeals that the tax is imposed on minerals sold on the reservation
or transported off the reservation before sale. See 617 F.2d, at 546. Cf. n. 22, supra.FN24 Un-
der this interpretation, the tax does not *158 treat minerals transported away from the reserva-
tion differently than it treats minerals that might be sold on the reservation. Nor does the
Tribe's tax ordinance exempt minerals ultimately received by individual members of the
Tribe. The ordinance does exempt minerals received by the Tribe as in-kind payments on the
leases and used for tribal purposes,FN25 but this exemption merely avoids the administrative
make-work that would ensue if the Tribe, as local government, taxed the amount of minerals
that the Tribe, as commercial partner, received in royalty payments. Therefore, this exemption
cannot be deemed a discriminatory preference for local commerce.FN26
FN24. The ordinance does not distinguish between minerals remaining within New
Mexico and those transported beyond the state boundary. As a result, petitioners' argu-
ment that the tax discriminates against interstate commerce by favoring local sales fo-
cuses on the boundary between the reservation and the State of New Mexico and not
on any interstate boundaries. We will assume for purposes of this argument only that
this alleged reservation-state discrimination could give rise to a Commerce Clause vi-
olation.
FN25. Paragraph 4 of the ordinance specifies that [r]oyalty gas, oil or condensate
taken by the Tribe in kind, and used by the Tribe shall be exempt from taxation. App.
39.
FN26. Petitioners contend that because New Mexico may tax the same mining activity
at full value, the Indian tax imposes a multiple tax burden on interstate commerce in
violation of the Commerce Clause. The multiple taxation issue arises where two or
more taxing jurisdictions point to some contact with an enterprise to support a tax on
the entire value of its multistate activities, which is more than the contact would justi-
fy. E.g., Standard Oil Co. v. Peck, 342 U.S. 382, 384-385, 72 S.Ct. 309, 310-311, 96
L.Ed. 427 (1952). This Court has required an apportionment of the tax based on the
portion of the activity properly viewed as occurring within each relevant State. See,
e.g., Exxon Corp. v. Wisconsin Dept. of Revenue, 447 U.S. 207, 219, 100 S.Ct. 2109,
2118, 65 L.Ed.2d 66 (1980); Washington Revenue Dept. v. Association of Washington
Stevedoring Cos., 435 U.S. 734, 746, and n. 16, 98 S.Ct. 1388, 1397, and n. 16, 55
L.Ed.2d 682 (1978).
This rule has no bearing here, however, for there can be no claim that the Tribe seeks
to tax any more of petitioners' mining activity than the portion occurring within Tri-
bal jurisdiction. Indeed, petitioners do not even argue that the Tribe is seeking to
seize more tax revenues than would be fairly related to the services provided by the
Tribe. See supra, at 911, and n. 23. In the absence of such an assertion, and when the
activity taxed by the Tribe occurs entirely on tribal lands, the multiple taxation issue
would arise only if a State attempted to levy a tax on the same activity, which is
more than the State's contact with the activity would justify. In such a circumstance,

102 S.Ct. 894 Page 31
455 U.S. 130, 102 S.Ct. 894, 71 L.Ed.2d 21
(Cite as: 455 U.S. 130, 102 S.Ct. 894)
any challenge asserting that tribal and state taxes create a multiple burden on inter-
state commerce should be directed at the state tax, which, in the absence of congres-
sional ratification, might be invalidated under the Commerce Clause. These cases, of
course, do not involve a challenge to state taxation, and we intimate no opinion on
the possibility of such a challenge.
*159 **913 IV
In Worcester v. Georgia, 6 Pet., at 559, 8 L.Ed. 483, Chief Justice Marshall observed that
Indian tribes had always been considered as distinct, independent political communities, re-
taining their original natural rights. Although the tribes are subject to the authority of the
Federal Government, the weaker power does not surrender its independence-its right to self-
government, by associating with a stronger, and taking its protection. Id., at 561, 8 L.Ed.
483. Adhering to this understanding, we conclude that the Tribe did not surrender its authority
to tax the mining activities of petitioners, whether this authority is deemed to arise from the
Tribe's inherent power of self-government or from its inherent power to exclude nonmembers.
Therefore, the Tribe may enforce its severance tax unless and until Congress divests this
power, an action that Congress has not taken to date. Finally, the severance tax imposed by
the Tribe cannot be invalidated on the ground that it violates the negative implications of
the Commerce Clause.
Affirmed.
Justice STEVENS, with whom THE CHIEF JUSTICE and Justice REHNQUIST join, dissent-
ing.
The Indian tribes that occupied North America before Europeans settled the continent
were unquestionably sovereigns. They ruled themselves and they exercised dominion over the
lands that nourished them. Many of those tribes, and some attributes of their sovereignty, sur-
vive today. This Court, since its earliest days, has had the task of identifying*160 those inher-
ent sovereign powers that survived the creation of a new Nation and the introduction of an en-
tirely new system of laws applicable to both Indians and non-Indians.
In performing that task, this Court has guarded carefully the unique status of Indian tribes
within this Nation. Over its own members, an Indian tribe's sovereign powers are virtually un-
limited; the incorporation of the tribe into the United States has done little to change internal
tribal relations. In becoming part of the United States, however, the tribes yielded their status
as independent nations; Indians and non-Indians alike answered to the authority of a new Na-
tion, organized under a new Constitution based on democratic principles of representative
government. In that new system of government, Indian tribes were afforded no general powers
over citizens of the United States. Many tribes, however, were granted a power unknown to
any other sovereignty in this Nation: a power to exclude nonmembers entirely from territory
reserved for the tribe. Incident to this basic power to exclude, the tribes exercise limited
powers of governance over nonmembers, though those nonmembers have no voice in tribal
government. Since a tribe may exclude nonmembers entirely from tribal territory, the tribe ne-
cessarily may impose conditions on a right of entry granted to a nonmember to do business on
the reservation.

102 S.Ct. 894 Page 32
455 U.S. 130, 102 S.Ct. 894, 71 L.Ed.2d 21
(Cite as: 455 U.S. 130, 102 S.Ct. 894)
The question presented in these cases is whether, after a tribe has granted nonmembers ac-
cess to its reservation on specified terms and conditions to engage in an economic venture of
mutual benefit, the **914 tribe may impose a tax on the nonmembers' share of benefits de-
rived from the venture. The Court today holds that it may do so. In my opinion this holding
distorts the very concept of tribal sovereignty. Because I am convinced that the Court's treat-
ment of these important cases gives inadequate attention to the critical difference between a
tribe's powers over its own members and its powers over nonmembers, I set forth my views at
greater length than is normally appropriate in a dissenting opinion.
*161 I
The 2,100 members of the Jicarilla Apache Tribe live on a reservation in northern New
Mexico.FN1 The area encompassed by the reservation became a part of the United States in
1848 when the Mexican War ended in the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo. See 9 Stat. 922.
Between 1848 and 1871, the United States did not enter into any treaty with the Jicarillas or
enact any special legislation relating to them; in 1871 Congress outlawed any future treaties
with Indian tribes.FN2 In 1887, President Cleveland issued an Executive Order setting aside a
tract of public lands in the Territory of New Mexico as a reservation for the use and occupa-
tion of the Jicarilla Apache Indians. Except for a provision protecting bona fide settlers from
deprivation of previously acquired rights, the Executive Order contained no special rules ap-
plicable to the reservation.FN3 The mineral leases at issue in this case *162 were granted by
the Jicarilla Apache Tribe on these reservation lands.
FN1. See Plaintiff's Exhibit E, p. 4.
FN2. [H]ereafter no Indian nation or tribe within the territory of the United States
shall be acknowledged or recognized as an independent nation, tribe, or power with
whom the United States may contract by treaty: Provided, further, That nothing herein
contained shall be construed to invalidate or impair the obligation of any treaty hereto-
fore lawfully made and ratified with any such Indian nation or tribe. 16 Stat. 566, cur-
rent version at 25 U.S.C. 71.
FN3. The entire Executive Order reads as follows:
EXECUTIVE MANSION, FEBRUARY 11, 1887.
It is hereby ordered that all that portion of the public domain in the Territory of
New Mexico which, when surveyed, will be embraced in the following townships,
viz:
27, 28, 29, and 30 north, ranges 1 east, and 1, 2, and 3 west; 31 and 32 north, ranges
2 west and 3 west, and the south half of township 31 north, range 1 west, be, and the
same is hereby, set apart as a reservation for the use and occupation of the Jicarilla
Apache Indians: Provided, That this order shall not be so construed as to deprive any
bona fide settler of any valid rights he may have acquired under the law of the United
States providing for the disposition of the public domain.
Grover Cleveland.

102 S.Ct. 894 Page 33
455 U.S. 130, 102 S.Ct. 894, 71 L.Ed.2d 21
(Cite as: 455 U.S. 130, 102 S.Ct. 894)
1 C. Kappler, Indian Affairs, Laws and Treaties 875 (1904).

The record does not indicate whether any leasing activity occurred on the Jicarilla Reser-
vation between 1887 and 1953. During that period, however, the authority of Indian tribes to
enter into mineral leases was clarified. In 1891 Congress passed a statute permitting the min-
eral leasing of Indian lands. Act of Feb. 28, 1891, 3, 26 Stat. 795, 25 U.S.C. 397. Because
the statute applied only to lands occupied by Indians who have bought and paid for the
same, the statute was interpreted to be inapplicable to reservations created by Executive Or-
der. See British-American Oil Producing Co. v. Board of Equalization, 299 U.S. 159,
161-162, 164, 57 S.Ct. 132, 133, 134, 81 L.Ed. 95. In 1922, the Secretary of the Interior took
the position that Indian reservations created by Executive Order were public lands and that In-
dians residing on those reservations had no right to share in royalties derived from oil and gas
leases. 49 I.D. 139.FN4
FN4. The Secretary contended that the land on Executive Order reservations was sub-
ject to leasing, as lands of the United States, under the Mineral Lands Leasing Act of
February 25, 1920, 41 Stat. 437, 30 U.S.C. 181 et seq. In 1924, Attorney General
Stone rendered an opinion stating that the Mineral Lands Leasing Act did not apply to
Executive Order reservations. 34 Op.Atty.Gen. 181. In 1925, Stone instituted litigation
in the District Court of Utah to cancel certain leases that had been authorized by the
Secretary of the Interior pursuant to the Mineral Lands Leasing Act. See
H.R.Rep.No.1791, 69th Cong., 2d Sess., 5 (1927). The case was dismissed by stipula-
tion after the enactment of the 1927 Act noted in the text. See United States v. McMa-
hon, 273 U.S. 782, 47 S.Ct. 471, 71 L.Ed. 890.
A later decision by this Court suggests that the Secretary's position was correct. In
Sioux Tribe of Indians v. United States, 316 U.S. 317, 62 S.Ct. 1095, 86 L.Ed. 1501,
the Court held that an Indian tribe was not entitled to compensation from the United
States when an Executive Order reservation was abolished. The Court said:
Perhaps the most striking proof of the belief shared by Congress and the Executive
that the Indians were not entitled to compensation upon the abolition of an executive
order reservation is the very absence of compensatory payments in such situations. It
was a common practice, during the period in which reservations were created by ex-
ecutive order, for the President simply to terminate the existence of a reservation by
cancelling or revoking the order establishing it. That is to say, the procedure fol-
lowed in the case before us was typical. No compensation was made, and neither the
Government nor the Indians suggested that it was due.
We conclude therefore that there was no express constitutional or statutory author-
ization for the conveyance of a compensable interest to petitioner by the four execut-
ive orders of 1875 and 1876, and that no implied Congressional delegation of the
power to do so can be spelled out from the evidence of Congressional and executive
understanding. The orders were effective to withdraw from sale the lands affected
and to grant the use of the lands to the petitioner. But the interest which the Indians
received was subject to termination at the will of either the executive or Congress

102 S.Ct. 894 Page 34
455 U.S. 130, 102 S.Ct. 894, 71 L.Ed.2d 21
(Cite as: 455 U.S. 130, 102 S.Ct. 894)
and without obligation to the United States. The executive orders of 1879 and 1884
were simply an exercise of this power of termination, and the payment of compensa-
tion was not required. Id., at 330-331, 62 S.Ct., at 1101.
See also Tee-Hit-Ton Indians v. United States, 348 U.S. 272, 279-282, 75 S.Ct. 313,
317-319, 99 L.Ed. 314.
*163 **915 In 1927 Congress enacted a statute expressly providing that unallotted lands
on any Indian reservation created by Executive Order could be leased for oil and gas mining
purposes with the approval of the Secretary of the Interior.FN5 The statute directed that all
rentals, royalties, or bonuses for such leases should be paid to the Treasurer of the United
States for the benefit of the tribe for which the reservation was created.FN6 The statute further
provided that state taxes *164 could be levied upon the output of such oil and gas leases,FN7
but made no mention of the possibility that the Indian tribes, in addition to receiving royalties,
could impose taxes on the output.FN8
FN5. Act of Mar. 3, 1927, 44 Stat. (part 2) 1347, current version at 25 U.S.C. 398a.
Section 1 of the Act provided:
[U]nallotted lands within the limits of any reservation or withdrawal created by Ex-
ecutive order for Indian purposes or for the use or occupancy of any Indians or tribe
may be leased for oil and gas mining purposes in accordance with the provisions
contained in the Act of May 29, 1924 [25 U.S.C. 398].
See also 25 U.S.C. 398. Unalloted land is land that had not been allotted in sever-
alty to individual Indians pursuant to the General Allotment Act of 1887, 24 Stat.
388.
FN6. Section 2 of the Act provided:
[T]he proceeds from rentals, royalties, or bonuses of oil and gas leases upon lands
within Executive order Indian reservations or withdrawals shall be deposited in the
Treasury of the United States to the credit of the tribe of Indians for whose benefit
the reservation or withdrawal was created or who are using and occupying the land,
and shall draw interest at the rate of 4 per centum per annum and be available for ap-
propriation by Congress for expenses in connection with the supervision of the de-
velopment and operation of the oil and gas industry and for the use and benefit of
such Indians: Provided, That said Indians, or their tribal council, shall be consulted
in regard to the expenditure of such money, but no per capita payment shall be made
except by Act of Congress. 44 Stat. (part 2) 1347, current version at 25 U.S.C.
398b.
FN7. Section 3 of the Act provided:
[T]axes may be levied and collected by the State or local authority upon improve-
ments, output of mines or oil and gas wells or other rights, property, or assets of any
lessee upon lands within Executive order Indian reservations in the same manner as

102 S.Ct. 894 Page 35
455 U.S. 130, 102 S.Ct. 894, 71 L.Ed.2d 21
(Cite as: 455 U.S. 130, 102 S.Ct. 894)
such taxes are otherwise levied and collected, and such taxes may be levied against
the share obtained for the Indians as bonuses, rentals, and royalties, and the Secretary
of the Interior is authorized and directed to cause such taxes to be paid out of the tri-
bal funds in the Treasury: Provided, That such taxes shall not become a lien or
charge of any kind against the land or other property of such Indians. 44 Stat. (part
2) 1347, current version at 25 U.S.C. 398c.
FN8. In 1938, Congress passed the Act of May 11, 1938, 52 Stat. 347, 25 U.S.C.
396a-396g, which was designed in part to achieve uniformity for all mineral leases of
Indian lands. Like the 1927 Act, the statute provided that the tribes were entitled to the
royalties from such leases. The statute made no mention of taxes. See n. 45, infra.
**916 In 1934, Congress enacted the Indian Reorganization Act, 48 Stat. 984, 25 U.S.C.
461 et seq., which authorized any Indian tribe residing on a reservation to adopt a constitution
and bylaws, subject to the approval of the Secretary of the Interior. The Act provided that,
[i]n addition to all powers vested in any Indian tribe or tribal council by existing law, the
constitution should vest certain specific powers, such as the power to employ legal counsel, in
the tribe.FN9 The Act *165 also authorized the Secretary of the Interior to issue a charter of
incorporation to an Indian tribe, and provided that the charter could convey to the tribe the
power to purchase, manage, and dispose of its property.FN10 The 1934 Act was silent con-
cerning the right of an Indian tribe to levy taxes.FN11 The first Jicarilla Apache Constitution
was approved by the Secretary of the Interior in 1937.FN12
FN9. The statute provided, in part:
Any Indian tribe, or tribes, residing on the same reservation, shall have the right to
organize for its common welfare, and may adopt an appropriate constitution and
bylaws, which shall become effective when ratified by a majority vote of the adult
members of the tribe, or of the adult Indians residing on such reservation, as the case
may be, at a special election authorized and called by the Secretary of the Interior un-
der such rules and regulations as he may prescribe....
In addition to all powers vested in any Indian tribe or tribal council by existing law,
the constitution adopted by said tribe shall also vest in such tribe or its tribal council
the following rights and powers: To employ legal counsel, the choice of counsel and
fixing of fees to be subject to the approval of the Secretary of the Interior; to prevent
the sale, disposition, lease, or encumbrance of tribal lands, interests in lands, or other
tribal assets without the consent of the tribe; and to negotiate with the Federal, State,
and local Governments. 25 U.S.C. 476.
FN10. The statute provided:
The Secretary of the Interior may, upon petition by at least one-third of the adult In-
dians, issue a charter of incorporation to such tribe: Provided, That such charter shall
not become operative until ratified at a special election by a majority vote of the
adult Indians living on the reservation. Such charter may convey to the incorporated
tribe the power to purchase, take by gift, or bequest, or otherwise, own, hold, man-

102 S.Ct. 894 Page 36
455 U.S. 130, 102 S.Ct. 894, 71 L.Ed.2d 21
(Cite as: 455 U.S. 130, 102 S.Ct. 894)
age, operate, and dispose of property of every description, real and personal, includ-
ing the power to purchase restricted Indian lands and to issue in exchange therefor
interests in corporate property, and such further powers as may be incidental to the
conduct of corporate business, not inconsistent with law; but no authority shall be
granted to sell, mortgage, or lease for a period exceeding ten years any of the land in-
cluded in the limits of the reservation. Any charter so issued shall not be revoked or
surrendered except by Act of Congress. 25 U.S.C. 477.
FN11. See F. Cohen, Handbook of Federal Indian Law 267 (1942) (hereinafter Cohen).
FN12. The 1937 Constitution made no reference to any power to assess taxes against
nonmembers. See 1937 Constitution and By-Laws of the Jicarilla Apache Tribe, De-
fendants' Exhibit G.
*166 In 1953, the Tribe executed an oil and gas lease with the Phillips Petroleum Co. App.
22-30. The lease, prepared on a form provided by the Bureau of Indian Affairs of the Depart-
ment of the Interior, presumably is typical of later leases executed between other companies
and the Tribe. FN13 The lease provides that in return for certain rents, royalties, and a cash
bonus of $71,345.99, all to be paid to the treasurer of the Tribe, the Tribe as lessor granted to
the lessee the exclusive right and privilege to drill for, mine, extract, remove, and dispose of
all the oil and natural gas deposits in or under the described tracts of land, together with the
right to construct and maintain buildings, plants, tanks, and other necessary structures on the
surface. Id., at 22-23. The lease is for a term of 10 years following approval by the Secretary
of the Interior and as much longer thereafter as **917 oil and/or gas is produced in paying
quantities from said land. Ibid. The lessee is obligated to use reasonable diligence in the de-
velopment of the property, and to pay an annual rental of $1.25 per acre and a royalty of 12
1/2 % of the value or amount of all oil and gas produced and saved from the leased land.
Id., at 24, 26. Oil and gas used by the lessee for development and operation of the lease is roy-
alty-free. Id., at 24. The Tribe reserved the rights to use free of charge sufficient gas for any
school or other building owned by the Tribe on the leased premises, and to take its royalty in
kind. Id., at 27-28.
FN13. This lease is attached to petitioners' complaint in No. 80-11. The lease attached
to the complaint in No. 80-15 was also executed in 1953. See App. 62. The record does
not disclose the date on which most of the leases with petitioners were executed, but
the record does indicate that leases were executed as late as 1967. See Plaintiffs' Ex-
hibit 1. Leases of Jicarilla tribal property cover in the aggregate over 500,000 acres of
land, comprising almost 69% of the acreage within the Jicarilla Reservation. Brief for
Respondent, Jicarilla Apache Tribe 2.
The lease contains no reference to the payment of taxes. The lessee does, however, agree
to comply with all regulations of the Secretary of the Interior
now or hereafter in force relative to such leases: Provided, That no regulation hereafter
approved shall effect *167 a change in rate or royalty or annual rental herein specified without
the written consent of the parties to this lease. Id., at 27.

102 S.Ct. 894 Page 37
455 U.S. 130, 102 S.Ct. 894, 71 L.Ed.2d 21
(Cite as: 455 U.S. 130, 102 S.Ct. 894)
The lease was approved by the Commissioner of Indian Affairs on behalf of the Secretary
of the Interior. Id., at 32. Both of the 1953 leases described in the record are still producing.
In 1968, the Tribe adopted a Revised Constitution giving its Tribal Council authority, sub-
ject to approval by the Secretary of the Interior, to impose taxes and fees on non-members of
the tribe doing business on the reservation. FN14 Eight years later, the Tribal Council en-
acted an Oil and Gas Severance Tax Ordinance, which was approved by the Secretary of the
Interior. The tribal ordinance provides that a severance tax is imposed on any oil and natural
gas severed, saved and removed from Tribal lands.... Id., at 38. The rate of the tax is $.05 per
million Btu's of gas produced on the reservation and sold or transported off the reservation
and $0.29 per barrel of crude or condensate produced on the reservation and sold or transpor-
ted off the reservation. Id., at 39. Royalty gas or oil taken by the Tribe, as well as gas or oil
used by the Tribe, is exempt from the tax. Ibid. Thus the entire burden of the tax apparently
will fall on nonmembers of the Tribe. The tax, if sustained, will produce over $2 million in
revenues annually.FN15
FN14. App. to Brief for Petitioners in No. 80-15, pp. 12a-13a. An earlier Constitution
adopted in 1960 contained a similar provision permitting taxes and fees on persons
doing business on the reservation. See 1960 Constitution of the Jicarilla Apache
Tribe, Art. VI, 5, Defendant's Exhibit A.
FN15. See District Court's Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, Finding No. 32,
App. 130. The Tribe's answers to interrogatories indicate that in 1976 the royalties on
the leases received by the Tribe amounted to $3,995,469.69. See Plaintiff's Exhibit E,
p. 7; Tr. 269.
*168 II
The powers possessed by Indian tribes stem from three sources: federal statutes, treaties,
and the tribe's inherent sovereignty. Neither the Tribe nor the Federal Government seeks to
justify the Jicarilla Tribe's severance tax on the basis of any federal statute,FN16 and the Ji-
carilla Apaches, who reside on an Executive Order reservation, executed no treaty with the
United States from which they derive sovereign powers. Therefore, if the severance tax is val-
id, it must be as an exercise of the Tribe's inherent sovereignty.
FN16. Congress may delegate sovereign powers to the tribes. See United States v.
Mazurie, 419 U.S. 544, 95 S.Ct. 710, 42 L.Ed.2d 706. As indicated, however, neither
the 1927 statute permitting Indians to receive royalties from the lease of tribal lands
nor the Indian Reorganization Act of 1934 conveys authority to the Indian tribes to tax.
See supra, at 915-916.
Tribal sovereignty is neither derived from nor protected by the Constitution. FN17 **918
Indian tribes have, however, retained many of the powers of self-government that they pos-
sessed at the time of their incorporation into the United States. As stated by Justice M'Lean in
Worcester v. Georgia, 6 Pet. 515, 580, 8 L.Ed. 483 (concurring opinion):
FN17. The only reference to Indian tribes in the Constitution is in Art. I, 8, cl. 3,
which provides that [t]he Congress shall have Power ... [t]o regulate Commerce with

102 S.Ct. 894 Page 38
455 U.S. 130, 102 S.Ct. 894, 71 L.Ed.2d 21
(Cite as: 455 U.S. 130, 102 S.Ct. 894)
foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes. More sig-
nificant than this reference to Indian tribes is the absence of any mention of the tribes
in the Tenth Amendment, which provides:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by
it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
At no time has the sovereignty of the country been recognised as existing in the Indians,
but they have been always admitted to possess many of the attributes of sovereignty. All the
rights which belong to self-government have been recognised as vested in them.
*169 Similarly, the Court in United States v. Kagama, 118 U.S. 375, 381-382, 6 S.Ct.
1109, 1112-13, 30 L.Ed. 228, stated:
[The Indians] were, and always have been, regarded as having a semi-independent posi-
tion when they preserved their tribal relations; not as States, not as nations, not as possessed
of the full attributes of sovereignty, but as a separate people, with the power of regulating
their internal and social relations, and thus far not brought under the laws of the Union or of
the State within whose limits they resided.
Two distinct principles emerge from these early statements of tribal sovereignty: that Indi-
an tribes possess broad powers of self-governance over tribal members, but that tribes do not
possess the same attributes of sovereignty that the Federal Government and the several States
enjoy. FN18 In determining the extent of the sovereign powers that the tribes retained in sub-
mitting to the authority of the United States, *170 this Court has recognized a fundamental
distinction between the right of the tribes to govern their own internal affairs and the right to
exercise powers affecting nonmembers of the tribe.
FN18. The Indian tribes often have been described as domestic dependent nations.
The term was first used in Cherokee Nation v. Georgia, 5 Pet. 1, 8 L.Ed. 25, where
Chief Justice Marshall, writing for the Court, explained:
Though the Indians are acknowledged to have an unquestionable, and, heretofore,
unquestioned right to the lands they occupy, until that right shall be extinguished by
a voluntary cession to our government; yet, it may well be doubted whether those
tribes which reside within the acknowledged boundaries of the United States can,
with strict accuracy, be denominated foreign nations. They may, more correctly, per-
haps, be denominated domestic dependent nations. They occupy a territory to which
we assert a title independent of their will, which must take effect in point of posses-
sion when their right of possession ceases. Meanwhile they are in a state of pupilage.
Their relation to the United States resembles that of a ward to his guardian. Id., at
17, 8 L.Ed. 25.
The United States retains plenary authority to divest the tribes of any attributes of
sovereignty. See United States v. Wheeler, 435 U.S. 313, 319, 98 S.Ct. 1079, 1083,
55 L.Ed.2d 303; Winton v. Amos, 255 U.S. 373, 391-392, 41 S.Ct. 342, 349, 65 L.Ed.
684; Lone Wolf v. Hitchcock, 187 U.S. 553, 565, 23 S.Ct. 216, 221, 47 L.Ed. 299; 1
American Indian Policy Review Commission, Final Report 106-107 (1977)

102 S.Ct. 894 Page 39
455 U.S. 130, 102 S.Ct. 894, 71 L.Ed.2d 21
(Cite as: 455 U.S. 130, 102 S.Ct. 894)
(hereinafter AIPRC Final Report). Thus, for example, Congress can waive the tribes'
sovereign immunity. See United States v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co.,
309 U.S. 506, 512, 60 S.Ct. 653, 656, 84 L.Ed. 894.
The Court has been careful to protect the tribes from interference with tribal control over
their own members. The Court has recognized that tribes have the power to prosecute mem-
bers for violations of tribal criminal law, and that this power is an inherent attribute of tribal
sovereignty. United States v. Wheeler, 435 U.S. 313, 98 S.Ct. 1079, 55 L.Ed.2d 303. The
tribes also retain the power to create substantive law governing internal tribal affairs. Tribes
may define rules of membership, and thus determine who is entitled to the benefits of tribal
citizenship, Roff v. Burney, 168 U.S. 218, 18 S.Ct. 60, 42 L.Ed. 442; establish rules of inherit-
ance, which supersede applicable state law, Jones v. Meehan, 175 U.S. 1, 29, 20 S.Ct. 1, 12,
44 L.Ed. 49; and determine rights to custody of a child of divorced parents of the tribe, and
thus pre-empt adoption proceedings brought in state court. Fisher v. District Court, 424 U.S.
382, 96 S.Ct. 943, 47 L.Ed.2d 106. This substantive tribal law may be enforced in tribal
courts. **919Williams v. Lee, 358 U.S. 217, 79 S.Ct. 269, 3 L.Ed.2d 251; Fisher v. District
Court, supra.
In many respects, the Indian tribes' sovereignty over their own members is significantly
greater than the States' powers over their own citizens. Tribes may enforce discriminatory
rules that would be intolerable in a non-Indian community. The equal protection components
of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, which limit federal or state authority, do not simil-
arly limit tribal power. See Santa Clara Pueblo v. Martinez, 436 U.S. 49, 56, and n. 7, 98
S.Ct. 1670, 1675, and n. 7, 56 L.Ed.2d 106.FN19 The criminal jurisdiction of the tribes over
their own members is similarly unconstrained*171 by constitutional limitations applicable to
the States and the Federal Government.FN20 Thus the use of the word sovereign to charac-
terize tribal powers of self-government is surely appropriate.
FN19. The Indian Civil Rights Act of 1968, 82 Stat. 77, 25 U.S.C. 1301-1303, pro-
hibits Indian tribes from denying to any person within its jurisdiction the equal pro-
tection of its laws. 1302(8). In Santa Clara Pueblo, however, the Court held that
sovereign immunity protected a tribe from suit under the Act, that the Act did not cre-
ate a private cause of action cognizable in federal court, and that a tribal court was the
appropriate forum for vindication of rights created by the Act.
FN20. In Talton v. Mayes, 163 U.S. 376, 16 S.Ct. 986, 41 L.Ed. 196, the Court held
that the Fifth Amendment right to indictment by grand jury does not apply to prosecu-
tions in tribal courts. See also United States v. Wheeler, supra, at 328-329, 98 S.Ct., at
1088-1089.
In sharp contrast to the tribes' broad powers over their own members, tribal powers over
nonmembers have always been narrowly confined.FN21 The Court has emphasized that
exercise of tribal power beyond what is necessary to protect tribal self-government or to con-
trol internal relations is inconsistent with the dependent status of the tribes, and so cannot sur-
vive without express congressional delegation. Montana v. United States, 450 U.S. 544, 564,
101 S.Ct. 1245, 1257, 67 L.Ed.2d 493. In Oliphant v. Suquamish Indian Tribe, 435 U.S. 191,

102 S.Ct. 894 Page 40
455 U.S. 130, 102 S.Ct. 894, 71 L.Ed.2d 21
(Cite as: 455 U.S. 130, 102 S.Ct. 894)
98 S.Ct. 1011, 55 L.Ed.2d 209, the Court held that tribes have no criminal jurisdiction over
crimes committed by nonmembers within the reservations.FN22 In Montana v. United States,
supra, the Court held that the Crow Tribe could not prohibit hunting and fishing by nonmem-
bers on reservation*172 land no longer owned by the Tribe, and indicated that the principle
underlying Oliphant -that tribes possess limited power over nonmembers-was applicable in a
civil as well as a criminal context. As stated by the Court, [t]hough Oliphant only determined
inherent tribal authority in criminal matters, the principles on which it relied support the gen-
eral proposition that the inherent sovereign powers of an Indian tribe do not extend to the
activities of nonmembers of the tribe. Montana v. United States, supra, at 565, 101 S.Ct., at
1258 (footnote omitted).FN23
FN21. Certain treaties that specifically granted the right of self-government to the
tribes also specifically excluded jurisdiction over nonmembers. See, e.g., Treaty with
the Cherokees, Art. 5, 7 Stat. 481 (1835); Treaty with the Choctaws and Chickasaws,
Art. 7, 11 Stat. 612 (1855); Treaty with the Creeks and Seminoles, Art. 15, 11 Stat.
703 (1856).
FN22. In support of that holding, the Court stated:
Upon incorporation into the territory of the United States, the Indian tribes thereby
come under the territorial sovereignty of the United States and their exercise of sep-
arate power is constrained so as not to conflict with the interests of this overriding
sovereignty. [T]heir rights to complete sovereignty, as independent nations, [are]
necessarily diminished. Johnson v. M'Intosh, 8 Wheat. 543, 574 [5 L.Ed. 681]
(1823). 435 U.S., at 209, 98 S.Ct., at 1021.
See also New York ex rel. Ray v. Martin, 326 U.S. 496, 499, 66 S.Ct. 307, 308, 90
L.Ed. 261 (state court has jurisdiction to try a non-Indian for a crime committed
against a non-Indian on a reservation).
FN23. Preceding this statement the Court noted that the Court [in Oliphant] quoted
Justice Johnson's words in his concurrence in Fletcher v. Peck, 6 Cranch 87, 147, 3
L.Ed. 162-the first Indian case to reach this Court-that the Indian tribes have lost any
right of governing every person within their limits except themselves. 435 U.S., at
209 [98 S.Ct., at 1021]. Montana v. United States, 450 U.S., at 565, 101 S.Ct., at
1258. See also Oneida Indian Nation v. County of Oneida, 414 U.S. 661, 94 S.Ct. 772,
39 L.Ed.2d 73 (tribes cannot freely alienate to non-Indians the land they occupy);
Cherokee Nation v. Georgia, 5 Pet. 1, 17-18, 8 L.Ed. 25 (tribes cannot enter into direct
commercial or foreign relations with other nations).
In United States v. Wheeler, supra, the Court held that the tribes' power to prosecute
its members for tribal offenses was not implicitly lost by virtue of their dependent
status, but stated:
The areas in which such implicit divestiture of sovereignty has been held to have
occurred are those involving the relations between an Indian tribe and nonmembers
of the tribe....

102 S.Ct. 894 Page 41
455 U.S. 130, 102 S.Ct. 894, 71 L.Ed.2d 21
(Cite as: 455 U.S. 130, 102 S.Ct. 894)
These limitations rest on the fact that the dependent status of Indian tribes within
our territorial jurisdiction is necessarily inconsistent with their freedom independ-
ently to determine their external relations. But the powers of self-government, in-
cluding the power to prescribe and enforce internal criminal laws, are of a different
type. They involve only the relations among members of a tribe. Thus, they are not
such powers as would necessarily be lost by virtue of a tribe's dependent status.
[T]he settled doctrine of the law of nations is, that a weaker power does not sur-
render its independence-its right to self government, by associating with a stronger,
and taking its protection. Worcester v. Georgia [6 Pet.], at 560-561. 435 U.S., at
326, 98 S.Ct., at 1088.
**920 The tribes' authority to enact legislation affecting nonmembers is therefore of a dif-
ferent character than their broad power to control internal tribal affairs. This difference is
*173 consistent with the fundamental principle that [i]n this Nation each sovereign governs
only with the consent of the governed. Nevada v. Hall, 440 U.S. 410, 426, 99 S.Ct. 1182,
1191, 59 L.Ed.2d 416. Since nonmembers are excluded from participation in tribal govern-
ment, the powers that may be exercised over them are appropriately limited. Certainly, tribal
authority over nonmembers-including the power to tax-is not unprecedented. An examination
of cases that have upheld this power, however, demonstrates that the power to impose such a
tax derives solely from the tribes' power to exclude nonmembers entirely from territory that
has been reserved for the tribe. This power to exclude logically has been held to include the
lesser power to attach conditions on a right of entry granted by the tribe to a nonmember to
engage in particular activities within the reservation.
III
A study of the source of the tribes' power to tax nonmembers must focus on the extent of
the tribal power to tax that existed in 1934, when the Indian Reorganization Act was enacted
to prevent further erosion of Indian sovereign powers.FN24 *174 Shortly after the Act was
passed, the Solicitor of the Department of the Interior issued a formal opinion setting forth his
understanding of the powers that might be secured by an Indian tribe and incorporated in its
constitution by virtue of the reference in the Reorganization Act to powers vested in an **921
Indian tribe by existing law. FN25 Solicitor Margold concluded*175 that among those
powers was a power of taxation; his opinion described the permissible exercise of that power:
FN24. The Indian Reorganization Act of 1934 confirmed but did not enlarge the inher-
ent sovereign powers of the Indian tribes. Congress intended the Act to stabilize the
tribal organization of Indian tribes by vesting such tribal organizations with real,
though limited, authority.... S.Rep. No. 1080, 73d Cong., 2d Sess., 1 (1934). As one
commentator interpreted 16 of the Act:
[I]t would appear that powers originally held by tribes that were recognized and al-
lowed to be retained by treaties or prior statutes, as well as any additional powers
conferred in the same manner, would be retained by tribes that accepted the terms of
the 1934 Act.... The provision is consistent with the act's purpose of enhancing tribal
government in that it recognized and reconfirmed those powers a tribe may already
have had as a government. Mettler, A Unified Theory of Indian Tribal Sovereignty,

102 S.Ct. 894 Page 42
455 U.S. 130, 102 S.Ct. 894, 71 L.Ed.2d 21
(Cite as: 455 U.S. 130, 102 S.Ct. 894)
30 Hastings L.Rev. 89, 97 (1978).

Moreover, although the power given by the Reorganization Act to the Secretary of
the Interior to approve or disapprove of the exercise of tribal powers places a limit on
tribal sovereignty, that power does not enable the Secretary to add to the inherent
powers that a tribe possessed before the Act was passed.
On the other hand, the fact that an Indian tribe may never have had the occasion to
exercise a particular power over nonmembers in its early history is not a sufficient
reason to deny the existence of that power. Accordingly, the fact that there is no
evidence that the Jicarilla Apache Tribe ever imposed a tax of any kind on a non-
member does not require the conclusion that it has no such taxing power. To the ex-
tent that the power to tax was an attribute of sovereignty possessed by Indian tribes
when the Reorganization Act was passed, Congress intended the statute to preserve
those powers for all Indian tribes that adopted a formal organization under the Act.
FN25. 55 I. D. 14 (1934). Solicitor Margold described the scope of this opinion as fol-
lows:
My opinion has been requested on the question of what powers may be secured to
an Indian tribe and incorporated in its constitution and by-laws by virtue of the fol-
lowing phrase, contained in section 16 of the Wheeler-Howard Act (48 Stat. 984,
987) [the Reorganization Act of 1934]:
In addition to all powers vested in any Indian tribe or tribal council by existing law,
the constitution adopted by said tribe shall also vest.... [Italics added.]
The question of what powers are vested in an Indian tribe or tribal council by exist-
ing law cannot be answered in detail for each Indian tribe without reference to hun-
dreds of special treaties and special acts of Congress. It is possible, however, on the
basis of the reported cases, the written opinions of the various executive departments,
and those statutes of Congress which are of general import, to define the powers
which have heretofore been recognized as lawfully within the jurisdiction of an Indi-
an tribe. My answer to the propounded question, then, will be general, and subject to
correction for particular tribes in the light of the treaties and statutes affecting such
tribe wherever such treaties or statutes contain peculiar provisions restricting or en-
larging the general authority of an Indian tribe. Id., at 17-18.
Except where Congress has provided otherwise, this power may be exercised over mem-
bers of the tribe and over nonmembers, so far as such nonmembers may accept privileges of
trade, residence, etc., to which taxes may be attached as conditions. 55 I. D. 14, 46 (1934).
Solicitor Margold cited three decisions in support of this opinion. These three cases,
Buster v. Wright, 135 F. 947 (CA8 1905), appeal dism'd, 203 U.S. 599, 27 S.Ct. 777, 51 L.Ed.
334; Morris v. Hitchcock, 194 U.S. 384, 24 S.Ct. 712, 48 L.Ed. 1030; and Maxey v. Wright, 3
Ind.T. 243, 54 S.W. 807 (Ct.App.Ind.T.), aff'd, 105 F. 1003 (CA8 1900), were decided shortly
after the turn of the century and are the three leading cases considering the power of an Indian
tribe to assess taxes against nonmembers.FN26 The three cases are similar in result and in

102 S.Ct. 894 Page 43
455 U.S. 130, 102 S.Ct. 894, 71 L.Ed.2d 21
(Cite as: 455 U.S. 130, 102 S.Ct. 894)
their reasoning. In each the court upheld the tax; in each the court relied on the Tribe's power
to exclude non-Indians from its reservation and concluded that the Tribe could condition entry
or continued presence within the reservation on the payment of a license fee or tax; and in
each the court assumed that the ultimate remedy for nonpayment of the tax would be exclu-
sion from the reservation.
FN26. Felix Cohen, in his Handbook on Federal Indian Law published in 1942, also
relies on these cases in his discussion of tribal taxation of nonmembers. Cohen
266-267. The Court in Washington v. Confederated Tribes of Colville Reservation, 447
U.S. 134, 100 S.Ct. 2069, 65 L.Ed.2d 10, cited both Buster v. Wright and Morris v.
Hitchcock in upholding an exercise of the tribal power to tax. 447 U.S., at 153, 100
S.Ct., at 2081. See infra., at 926.
In the first of these cases, Maxey v. Wright, the Court of Appeals of Indian Territory af-
firmed an order by a federal territorial court dismissing a complaint filed by non-Indian law-
yers practicing in the Creek Nation. The complaint sought to enjoin the Indian agent for the
Five Civilized Tribes from collecting an annual occupation tax of $25 assessed on each non-
Indian lawyer residing and practicing *176 his profession on the reservation. In rejecting the
attorneys' claim, the Court of Appeals first analyzed the relevant treaties between the United
States and the Creeks and noted that the Indians had carefully guarded their sovereignty, and
their right to admit, and consequently to exclude, all white persons, except such as are named
in the treaty. 3 Ind.T., at 247, 54 S.W., at 809. The court noted that the United States had
agreed that all persons who were not expressly excepted and were present in the Creek Nation
without the consent of that Nation [were] deemed to be intruders, and that the Government
had pledge[d] itself to remove them. Id., at 248, 54 S.W., at 809. Because attorneys were
not within any excepted class,FN27 the court concluded **922 that the Tribe had the authority
to require them either to pay the license fee or to be removed as intruders. FN28 The court
held:
FN27. Attorneys practicing in the United States courts are not persons who come
within the exceptions, for they are not in the employment of the government of the
United States, or persons peaceably traveling or temporarily sojourning in the coun-
try, or trading therein under license from the proper authority of the United States. 3
Ind.T., at 248-249, 54 S.W., at 809.
FN28. In reaching this conclusion the court relied heavily on two opinions of the At-
torney General of the United States. In the first opinion, issued in 1881, Attorney Gen-
eral MacVeagh supported the validity of Indian permit laws that determined which per-
sons would be permitted to reside on the Choctaw and Chickasaw Reservations. 17
Op.Atty.Gen. 134. In his discussion of the right of non-Indians to enter and remain on
tribal lands, MacVeagh stated:
Replying to your fourth question: it seems from what has been already said that, be-
sides those persons or classes mentioned by you, only those who have been permitted
by the Choctaws or Chickasaws to reside within their limits, or to be employed by
their citizens as teachers, mechanics, or skilled agriculturists, have a right to enter

102 S.Ct. 894 Page 44
455 U.S. 130, 102 S.Ct. 894, 71 L.Ed.2d 21
(Cite as: 455 U.S. 130, 102 S.Ct. 894)
and remain on the lands of these tribes; and the right to remain is gone when the per-
mit has expired. Id., at 136 (emphasis added).
In a second opinion on the same subject, Attorney General Phillips stated in 1884
that, in the absence of a treaty or statute, the power of an Indian tribe to regulate its
own rights of occupancy, and to say who shall participate therein and upon what con-
ditions, can not be doubted. 18 Op.Atty.Gen. 34, 36. Although the treaties applic-
able to the Choctaw and Chickasaw Tribes specifically excepted from the grant of
self-government the power over nonmembers, the Attorney General did not construe
this provision to limit the Tribes' power to exclude:
I submit that whatever this may mean it does not limit the right of these tribes to
pass upon the question, who (of persons indifferent to the United States, i.e., neither
employs, nor objectionable) shall share their occupancy and upon what terms. That
is a question which all private persons are allowed to decide for themselves .... Id.,
at 37.
*177 [T]he Creek nation had the power to impose this condition or occupation tax, if it
may be so called, upon attorneys at law (white men) residing and practicing their profession in
the Indian Territory. And inasmuch as the government of the United States, in the treaty, had
declared that all persons not authorized by its terms to reside in the Creek Nation should be
deemed to be intruders, and had obligated itself to remove all such persons from the Creek
Nation, the remedy to enforce this provision of the treaty was a removal by the United States
from the Creek Nation of the delinquent as an intruder. 3 Ind.T., at 250, 54 S.W., at 809-810.
FN29
FN29. In other parts of its opinion, the court restated the propositions that the Tribe
was clothed with the power to admit white men, or not, at its option, which, as we
hold, gave it the right to impose conditions, 3 Ind.T., at 253, 54 S.W., at 811, and that
a lawyer who refused to pay for the privilege of remaining would become an
intruder:
On the whole case we therefore hold that a lawyer who is a white man, and not a
citizen of the Creek Nation, is, pursuant to their statute, required to pay for the priv-
ilege of remaining and practicing his profession in that nation the sum of $25; that, if
he refuse the payment thereof, he becomes, by virtue of the treaty, an intruder, and
that in such a case the government of the United States may remove him from the na-
tion; and that this duty devolves upon the interior department. Whether the interior
department or its Indian agents can be controlled by the courts by the writs of man-
damus and injunction is not material in this case, because, as we hold, an attorney
who refuses to pay the amount required by the statute by its very terms becomes an
intruder, whom the United States promises by the terms of the treaty to remove, and
therefore in such cases the officers and agents of the interior department would be
acting clearly and properly within the scope of their powers. Id., at 256-257, 54
S.W., at 812.

102 S.Ct. 894 Page 45
455 U.S. 130, 102 S.Ct. 894, 71 L.Ed.2d 21
(Cite as: 455 U.S. 130, 102 S.Ct. 894)
*178 Morris v. Hitchcock, 194 U.S. 384, 24 S.Ct. 712, 48 L.Ed. 1030, decided by this
Court in 1904, also arose from a challenge to an enactment of one of the Five Civilized Tribes
that required non-Indians to pay annual permit fees. The complainants owned cattle and
horses that were grazing on land in the Chickasaw Nation pursuant to contracts with individu-
al members of the Tribe. Complainants filed suit in the District of Columbia seeking an in-
junction preventing federal officials from removing their cattle and horses from the Indian
Territory for failure to pay the permit fees assessed by the Tribe. An order dismissing the
complaint was affirmed by the **923 Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia and by
this Court.
This Court's opinion first noted that treaties between the United States and the Chickasaw
Nation had granted the Tribe the right to control the presence within the territory assigned to
it of persons who might otherwise be regarded as intruders, FN30 and that the United States
had assumed the obligation of protecting the Indians from aggression by persons not subject to
their jurisdiction. Id., at 389, 24 S.Ct., at 714. The Court then reviewed similar legislation that
had been adopted by the Chickasaw Nation in 1876, FN31 and noted that in 1879 the Senate
Committee on the Judiciary had specifically referred to the 1876 legislation and expressed an
opinion that it was valid. Id., at 389-390, 24 S.Ct., at 714-15.
FN30. The Court stated:
And it is not disputed that under the authority of these treaties, the Chickasaw Na-
tion has exercised the power to attach conditions to the presence within its borders of
persons who might otherwise not be entitled to remain within the tribal territory.
194 U.S., at 389, 24 S.Ct., at 714.
FN31. The 1876 legislation required licensed merchants and traders to obtain a permit
and pay a fee of $25.
The Court also reviewed two opinions of the Attorney General that had concluded that the
power of the Chickasaw to impose permit fees had not been withdrawn by Congress.FN32
*179 Although Congress subsequently had created an express exception in favor of owners of
town lots and thus protected them from eviction as intruders, the Court noted that no compar-
able protection had been given to owners of cattle and horses. Id., at 392-393, 24 S.Ct., at
715-716. On the basis of these authorities, the Court concluded that the Chickasaw legislation
imposing grazing fees was valid.
FN32. The Court relied on 23 Op.Atty.Gen. 214 (1900) and 23 Op.Atty.Gen. 528
(1901). In the first opinion, Attorney General John W. Griggs stated:
The treaties and laws of the United States make all persons, with a few specified ex-
ceptions, who are not citizens of an Indian nation or members of an Indian tribe, and
are found within an Indian nation without permission, intruders there, and require
their removal by the United States. This closes the whole matter, absolutely excludes
all but the excepted classes, and fully authorizes these nations to absolutely exclude
outsiders, or to permit their residence or business upon such terms as they may
choose to impose, and it must be borne in mind that citizens of the United States,

102 S.Ct. 894 Page 46
455 U.S. 130, 102 S.Ct. 894, 71 L.Ed.2d 21
(Cite as: 455 U.S. 130, 102 S.Ct. 894)
have, as such, no more right or business to be there than they have in any foreign na-
tion, and can lawfully be there at all only by Indian permission; and that their right to
be or remain or carry on business there depends solely upon whether they have such
permission.
As to the power or duty of your Department in the premises there can hardly be a
doubt. Under the treaties of the United States with these Indian nations this Govern-
ment is under the most solemn obligation, and for which it has received ample con-
sideration, to remove and keep removed from the territory of these tribes, all this
class of intruders who are there without Indian permission. The performance of this
obligation, as in other matters concerning the Indians and their affairs, has long been
devolved upon the Department of the Interior. 23 Op.Atty.Gen., at 218.
In the third case, Buster v. Wright, 135 F. 947 (CA8 1905), nonmembers of the Creek Na-
tion brought suit against federal inspectors to enjoin them from stopping the plaintiffs from
doing business within the reservation; the nonmembers feared such action because they had
refused to pay a permit tax assessed on traders by the Tribe. The Court of Appeals relied on
Morris v. Hitchcock and Maxey v. Wright in upholding the tax. The opinion for the court by
Judge Walter H. Sanborn emphasized that the tax was in the nature of a condition precedent to
transacting business within the reservation and that the plaintiffs had ample notice of the tax:
*180 The permit tax of the Creek Nation, which is the subject of this controversy, is the
annual price fixed by the act of its national council, which was approved by the President of
the United States in the year 1900, for the privilege which it offers to those who are not cit-
izens of its nation of trading within its borders. The payment of this tax is a mere condition of
the exercise of this privilege. No **924 noncitizen is required to exercise the privilege or to
pay the tax. He may refrain from the one and he remains free from liability for the other.
Thus, without entering upon an extended discussion or consideration of the question whether
this charge is technically a license or a tax, the fact appears that it partakes far more of the
nature of a license than of an ordinary tax, because it has the optional feature of the former
and lacks the compulsory attribute of the latter.
Repeated decisions of the courts, numerous opinions of the Attorneys General, and the
practice of years place beyond debate the propositions that prior to March 1, 1901, the Creek
Nation had lawful authority to require the payment of this tax as a condition precedent to the
exercise of the privilege of trading within its borders, and that the executive department of the
government of the United States had plenary power to enforce its payment through the Secret-
ary of the Interior and his subordinates, the Indian inspector, Indian agent, and Indian police.
135 F., at 949-950.
The court noted that the traders, who had purchased town lots of the Creek Nation pursu-
ant to a 1901 agreement between the Creeks and the United States, could not rely on that
agreement as an implied divestiture of a pre-existing power to tax.FN33 The court held that
even though noncitizens *181 of the Tribe had acquired lawful ownership of lots pursuant to
the 1901 agreement and could not be evicted from those lots, they had no right to conduct
business within the reservation without paying the permit taxes.FN34

102 S.Ct. 894 Page 47
455 U.S. 130, 102 S.Ct. 894, 71 L.Ed.2d 21
(Cite as: 455 U.S. 130, 102 S.Ct. 894)
FN33. After citing the opinion of Attorney General Griggs quoted at length in Morris
v. Hitchcock, Judge Sanborn wrote:
Pursuant to this decision the civilized tribes were charging, and the Indian agent
was collecting, taxes from noncitizens engaged in business in these nations. It was
under this state of facts that the United States and the Creek Nation made the agree-
ment of 1901. Did they intend by that agreement that the Creek Nation should
thereby renounce its conceded power to exact these permit taxes? Both parties knew
that this power existed, and the United States, by the act of its President approving
the law of the Creek national council, and the Secretary of the Interior by enforcing
it, had approved its exercise. The subject of these taxes was presented to the minds of
the contracting parties and was considered during the negotiation of the agreement,
for that contract contains express stipulations that cattle grazed on rented allotments
shall not be liable to any tribal tax (chapter 676, 31 Stat. 871, 37), and that no non-
citizen renting lands from a citizen for agricultural purposes as provided by law,
whether such lands have been selected as an allotment or not, shall be required to pay
any permit tax (chapter 676, 31 Stat. 871, 39). But they made no provision that
noncitizens who engaged in the mercantile business in the Creek Nation should be
exempt from these taxes. As the law then in force required such noncitizens to pay
such taxes, as both parties were then aware of that fact and considered the question,
and as they made no stipulation to abolish these taxes, the conclusive presumption is
that they intended to make no such contract, and that the power of the Creek Nation
to exact these taxes, and the authority of the Secretary of the Interior and of his sub-
ordinates to collect them, were neither renounced, revoked, nor restricted, but that
they remained in full force and effect after as before the agreement of 1901. 135 F.,
at 954.
FN34. Ibid. The court stated:
The legal effect ... of the law prescribing the permit taxes is to prohibit noncitizens
from conducting business within the Creek Nation without the payment of these
taxes. Id., at 955.
Prior to the enactment of the Indian Reorganization Act in 1934, these three cases were the
only judicial decisions considering the power of an Indian tribe to impose a tax on nonmem-
bers.FN35 These cases demonstrate**925 that the power of an *182 Indian tribe to impose a
tax solely on nonmembers doing business on the reservation derives from the tribe's power to
exclude those persons entirely from tribal lands or, in the alternative, to impose lesser restric-
tions and conditions on a right of entry granted to conduct business on the reservation.FN36
This interpretation is supported by the fact that the *183 remedy for the nonpayment of the tax
in all three cases was exclusion from the reservation.FN37
FN35. Two decades after the Reorganization Act was passed the problem was revisited
by the Eighth Circuit. In Iron Crow v. Oglala Sioux Tribe of Pine Ridge Reservation,
231 F.2d 89 (1956), the court held that the Tribe had the power to assess a tax on a
nonmember lessee of land within the reservation for the privilege of grazing stock on

102 S.Ct. 894 Page 48
455 U.S. 130, 102 S.Ct. 894, 71 L.Ed.2d 21
(Cite as: 455 U.S. 130, 102 S.Ct. 894)
reservation land. And in Barta v. Oglala Sioux Tribe of Pine Ridge Reservation, 259
F.2d 553 (1958), the court held that the United States could bring an action on behalf
of the Tribe to collect a license tax of 3 cents per acre per annum for grazing land and
15 cents per acre per annum for farm land levied on nonmember lessees. The court in
Barta held that the tax did not violate the constitutional rights of the nonmember less-
ees, stating in part:
The tribe by provisions of its treaty with the United States has power to provide for
the admission of nonmembers of the tribe onto the reservation. Having such power, it
has the authority to impose restrictions on the presence of nonmembers within the re-
servation. Id., at 556.
Language in both Iron Crow and Barta suggests that the Court of Appeals, unlike the
earlier courts, may not have rested the taxing power solely on the power to exclude.
The Court of Appeals of course did not have the benefit of our decisions in Oliphant
v. Suquamish Indian Tribe, 435 U.S. 191, 98 S.Ct. 1011, 55 L.Ed.2d 209, Wheeler,
and Montana v. United States.
FN36. In the chapter of his treatise entitled Taxation, Felix Cohen states:
Though the scope of the power [to tax] as applied to nonmembers is not clear, it ex-
tends at least to property of nonmembers used in connection with Indian property as
well as to privileges enjoyed by nonmembers in trading with the Indians. The power
to tax nonmembers is derived in the cases from the authority, founded on original
sovereignty and guaranteed in some instances by treaties, to remove property of non-
members from the territorial limits of the tribe. Since the tribal government has the
power to exclude, it can extract a fee from nonmembers as a condition precedent to
granting permission to remain or to operate within the tribal domain. Cohen
266-267 (footnotes omitted).
In another chapter, entitled The Scope of Tribal Self-Government, cited by the
Secretary of the Interior and the Tribe here, Cohen describes the power of taxation as
an inherent attribute of tribal sovereignty which continues unless withdrawn or lim-
ited by treaty or by act of Congress.... Id., at 142. After discussing Buster v. Wright,
Cohen cites that case for the proposition that [t]he power to tax does not depend
upon the power to remove and has been upheld where there was no power in the tribe
to remove the taxpayer from the tribal jurisdiction. Cohen 143. As demonstrated
above, however, the license tax in Buster was predicated on the tribe's right to attach
conditions on the right of nonmembers to conduct business on the reservation; the
tribe could prevent such nonmembers from doing business regardless of whether it
could physically remove them from the reservation. Moreover, in that same chapter
on tribal self-government, Cohen recognizes that tribal taxes have been upheld on the
basis of the tribe's power to remove nonmembers from the reservation, and that [i]t
is therefore pertinent, in analyzing the scope of tribal taxing powers, to inquire how
far an Indian tribe is empowered to remove nonmembers from its reservation. Co-
hen 143.

102 S.Ct. 894 Page 49
455 U.S. 130, 102 S.Ct. 894, 71 L.Ed.2d 21
(Cite as: 455 U.S. 130, 102 S.Ct. 894)
The American Indian Policy Review Commission recognized that the court decisions
upholding the tribes' taxing powers rely largely upon the power of tribes to remove
persons from the reservation, and consequently, to prescribe the conditions upon
which they shall enter, but argued for a broader source of the right to tax. AIPRC
Final Report 178-179.
FN37. In Buster v. Wright, the penalty for nonpayment of the tax was the closing of the
nonmember's business, enforced by the Secretary of the Interior. 135 F., at 954. In
Morris v. Hitchcock, the remedy was the removal of the nonmember's cattle from the
reservation, again enforced by the United States. 194 U.S., at 392, 24 S.Ct., at 715. In
Maxey v. Wright, an attorney refusing to pay the license fee to the Interior Department
was subject to removal from the reservation. 3 Ind.T., at 250, 54 S.W., at 810.
As I have noted, a limitation on the power of Indian tribes to tax nonmembers is not
simply an archaic concept derived from three old cases that has no basis in logic or equity.
Tribal powers over nonmembers are appropriately limited because nonmembers are foreclosed
from participation in tribal government. If the power to tax is limited to situations in which
the tribe has the power to exclude, then the nonmember is subjected to the tribe's jurisdiction
only if he accepts the conditions of entry imposed by the tribe.FN38 The limited source of the
power to tax nonmembers-the power to exclude intruders-is thus consistent with this Court's
recognition*184 of the limited character of the power of Indian tribes over nonmembers in
general.FN39 The proper **926 source of the taxing authority asserted by the Jicarilla Apache
Tribe in these cases, therefore, is not the Tribe's inherent power of self-government, but rather
its power over the territory that has been set apart for its use and occupation.FN40
FN38. No noncitizen is required to exercise a privilege or to pay the tax. He may re-
frain from the one and he remains free from liability for the other. Buster v. Wright,
135 F., at 949.
FN39. See supra, at 919. As I have indicated, see n. 21, supra, treaties recognizing the
inherent power of tribal self-government have also deprived the tribes of jurisdiction
over nonmembers. Nevertheless, those same treaties often specifically recognized the
right of the tribe to exclude nonmembers from the reservation or to attach conditions
on their entry. See e.g., Treaty with the Choctaw and Chickasaw, Art. 7, 11 Stat. 612
(1855); Treaty with the Creeks and Seminoles, Art. 15, 11 Stat. 699 (1856). See 2 C.
Kappler, Indian Affairs, Laws and Treaties 7, 9, 12, 15, 17, 20, 21, 27, 30, 42, 75, 418,
682, 699, 703, 719, 761, 774, 779, 790, 794, 800, 866, 886, 888, 929, 985, 990, 998,
1008, 1016, 1021 (1904).
FN40. The various tribes may have taken a similar view of their power to tax at the
time of the Indian Reorganization Act. Cohen's treatise notes:
The power of an Indian tribe to levy taxes upon its own members and upon non-
members doing business within the reservations has been affirmed in many tribal
constitutions approved under the Wheeler-Howard Act [Indian Reorganization Act],
as has the power to remove nonmembers from land over which the tribe exercises

102 S.Ct. 894 Page 50
455 U.S. 130, 102 S.Ct. 894, 71 L.Ed.2d 21
(Cite as: 455 U.S. 130, 102 S.Ct. 894)
jurisdiction. Cohen 143.

The following clause from the 1935 Constitution of the Rosebud Sioux Tribe, which
Cohen cites as a typical statement of such tribal powers, indicates that the Tribe
perceived the scope of its taxation powers over nonmembers to be narrower than the
scope of that power over members. The Constitution conveys tribal power-
(h) To levy taxes upon members of the tribe and to require the performance of reser-
vation labor in lieu thereof, and to levy taxes or license fees, subject to review by the
Secretary of the Interior, upon nonmembers doing business within the reservation.
(i) To exclude from the restricted lands on the reservation persons not legally en-
titled to reside therein, under ordinances which shall be subject to review by the Sec-
retary of the Interior. Ibid.
This conclusion is consistent with our recent decision in Washington v. Confederated
Tribes of Colville Reservation, 447 U.S. 134, 100 S.Ct. 2069, 65 L.Ed.2d 10. In that case we
held that a tribal tax on cigarettes sold on the reservations of the Colville, Makah, and Lummi
Tribes to nonmembers of the Tribes was a permissible*185 exercise of the Tribes' retained
sovereign power to tax.FN41 We recognized that the power to tax non-Indians entering the re-
servation had not been divested by virtue of the Tribes' dependent status and that no overrid-
ing federal interest would be frustrated by the tribal taxation. The Court quoted with approval,
as an indication of the Executive Branch's understanding of the taxing power, Solicitor Mar-
gold's 1934 opinion. The Court noted further that [f]ederal courts also have acknowledged
tribal power to tax non-Indians entering the reservation to engage in economic activity and
cited Buster v. Wright and Morris v. Hitchcock. 447 U.S., at 153, 100 S.Ct., at 2081.FN42 The
tax in Colville, which was applied to nonmembers who entered the reservation and sought to
purchase cigarettes, is clearly valid under the rationale that the tribes' power to tax derives
from the right to exclude nonmembers from the reservation and the lesser right to attach con-
ditions on the entry of such nonmembers seeking to do business there.FN43 Colville is con-
sistent with the principles set forth above. The power of Indian tribes to tax nonmembers
stems from the tribes' power to exclude those nonmembers; any exercise of this power must
be consistent with its source.FN44
FN41. The Court stated:
The power to tax transactions occurring on trust lands and significantly involving a
tribe or its members is a fundamental attribute of sovereignty which the tribes retain
unless divested of it by federal law or necessary implication of their dependent
status. 447 U.S., at 152, 100 S.Ct., at 2080.
FN42. The Court also cited, without discussion, the Eighth Circuit's decision in Iron
Crow v. Oglala Sioux Tribe, 231 F.2d 89 (1956).
FN43. A nonmember can avoid the tax by declining to do business on the reservation;
the sanction imposed for refusal to pay the tax is denial of permission to buy cigar-
ettes.

102 S.Ct. 894 Page 51
455 U.S. 130, 102 S.Ct. 894, 71 L.Ed.2d 21
(Cite as: 455 U.S. 130, 102 S.Ct. 894)
FN44. In some respects the tribal power to tax nonmembers may be greater than the
taxing power of other sovereigns. States do not have any power to exclude nonresid-
ents from their borders. Moreover, their taxing statutes, like their other laws, must
comply with the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. They may
not, therefore, impose discriminatory taxes as a condition attached to entry into the jur-
isdiction in order to engage in economic activity. But since an Indian tribe has exclus-
ive control over the use and occupancy of land within its reservation, it arguably
could attach special discriminatory conditions to any license to a nonmember to use or
occupy a portion of that land. As stated earlier, at a minimum the equal protection
components of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, which limit the sovereign
powers of the Federal and State Governments, do not similarly restrict the sovereign
powers of an Indian tribe. See supra., at 919.
*186 **927 IV
The power to exclude petitioners would have supported the imposition of a discriminatory
tribal tax on petitioners when they sought to enter the Jicarilla Apache Reservation to explore
for minerals. Moreover, even if no tax had been imposed at the time of initial entry, a discrim-
inatory severance tax could have been imposed as a condition attached to the grant of the priv-
ilege of extracting minerals from the earth.FN45 But the Tribe did not impose any tax prior to
petitioners' entry or as a condition attached to the privileges granted by the leases in 1953. As
a result, the tax imposed in 1976 is not valid unless the Tribe retained its power either to ex-
clude petitioners from the reservation or to prohibit them from continuing to extract oil and
gas from reservation lands.
FN45. [A]s the payment of a tax or license fee may be made a condition of entry upon
tribal land, it may also be made a condition to the grant of other privileges, such as the
acquisition of a tribal lease. Cohen 143.
The leases executed by the Tribe and petitioners are clearly valid and binding on both
parties. The Tribe does not contend that the leases were not the product of arm's-length bar-
gaining. Moreover, the leases were executed on a form prepared by the Department of the In-
terior, the Department gave specific approval to the terms of the leases, and they were ex-
ecuted pursuant to explicit congressional authority.FN46 Under the leases petitioners clearly
have the *187 right to remain on the reservation to do business for the duration of the con-
tracts.FN47
FN46. Congress intended the Act of March 3, 1927, to make applicable to Executive
Order reservations the leasing provisions already applicable to treaty reservations pur-
suant to the Act of May 29, 1924, ch. 210, 43 Stat. 244. S.Rep. No. 1240, 69th Cong.,
2d Sess., 3 (1927). The 1927 Act thus permitted the leasing of unallotted Indian land
for terms not to exceed 10 years and as much longer as oil and gas in paying quantities
were found on the land. 44 Stat. (part 2) 1347. Among the purposes of the 1927 statute
were to [p]ermit the exploration for oil and gas on Executive-order Indian Reserva-
tions, to [g]ive the Indian tribes all the oil and gas royalties, and to [p]lace with
Congress the future determination of any changes of boundaries of Executive-order re-
servations or withdrawals. S.Rep. No. 1240, supra, at 3. In light of these purposes, it

102 S.Ct. 894 Page 52
455 U.S. 130, 102 S.Ct. 894, 71 L.Ed.2d 21
(Cite as: 455 U.S. 130, 102 S.Ct. 894)
is clear that Congress intended leases executed pursuant to the 1927 Act to be binding.
The Tribe contends that the leases in these cases were executed pursuant to the Act
of May 11, 1938, 52 Stat. 347, and not the 1927 Act. The Tribe notes that the lease in
No. 80-15 states that it was executed pursuant to the 1938 Act. See App. 64. In re-
sponse, petitioners note that, although the Tribe argues that the 1938 Act-unlike the
1927 Act-does not require that royalties be paid to the Secretary of the Interior for
the benefit of the Tribe, petitioners make their royalty payments to the United States
Geological Survey for the benefit of the Jicarilla Apache. See Tr. 79-80. There is no
need to resolve this question, because for our purposes the provisions of the 1938
Act do not vary significantly from the provisions of the 1927 Act. The 1938 Act, like
the 1927 Act, permits the leasing of Indian lands for a period not to exceed ten
years and as long thereafter as minerals are produced in paying quantities. 25
U.S.C. 396a. One of the purposes of the 1938 Act was to establish uniformity in
the leasing of tribal lands by applying the law governing oil and gas leasing to all
other mineral leasing as well. S.Rep. No. 985, 75th Cong., 1st Sess., 1-2 (1937). Oth-
er purposes were to bring all mineral leasing matters in harmony with the Indian
Reorganization Act, id., at 3, and to enact changes designed to give the Indians the
greatest return from their property. Id., at 2. There is no indication in the legislative
history that the purposes of the 1938 Act are in any way inconsistent with the pur-
poses of the 1927 Act and prior legislation. Presumably the purposes of the earlier le-
gislation were incorporated into the uniform scheme intended by the 1938 Act.
FN47. As Attorney General MacVeagh stated in 1881, only those permitted by the
tribe to remain on the reservation may do so, and the right to remain is gone when the
permit has expired. 17 Op.Atty.Gen., at 136.
**928 There is no basis for a claim that exercise of the mining rights granted by the leases
was subject to an additional, unstated condition concerning the payment of severance taxes.
FN48 *188 At the time the leases contained in the record were executed, the Jicarilla Apache
Constitution contained no taxing authorization whatever; the severance tax ordinance was not
enacted until many years after all lessees had been granted an unlimited right to extract oil and
gas from the reservation. In addition, the written leases unambiguously stated:
FN48. In Colville, the nonmember desiring to purchase cigarettes on the reservation
knew that his right to do so was conditioned on his consent to pay the tax. Attorney
General Griggs, in his 1900 opinion on Trespassers on Indian Lands, discussed in
similar terms the effect on tribal laws of a federal statute providing for the sale of re-
servation lots to non-Indians:
[T]he legal right to purchase land within an Indian nation gives to the purchaser no
right of exemption from the laws of such nation, nor does it authorize him to do any
act in violation of the treaties with such nation. These laws requiring a permit to
reside or carry on business in the Indian country existed long before and at the time
this act was passed. And if any outsider saw proper to purchase a town lot under this
act of Congress, he did so with full knowledge that he could occupy it for residence

102 S.Ct. 894 Page 53
455 U.S. 130, 102 S.Ct. 894, 71 L.Ed.2d 21
(Cite as: 455 U.S. 130, 102 S.Ct. 894)
or business only by permission from the Indians. 23 Op.Atty.Gen., at 217.

In 1977, the American Indian Policy Review Commission noted that Indian tribes
do not both tax and receive royalties. Usually, they just receive royalties. AIPRC
Final Report 344.
[N]o regulation hereafter approved shall effect a change in rate or royalty or annual rental
herein specified without the written consent of the parties to this lease. App. 27.
Nor can it be said that notice of an inherent right to tax could have been gleaned from rel-
evant statutory enactments. When Congress enacted legislation in 1927 granting the Indians
the royalty income from oil and gas leases on reservations created by Executive Order, it
neither authorized nor prohibited the imposition of any taxes by the tribes. Although the ab-
sence of such reference does not indicate that Congress pre-empted the right of the tribes to
impose such a tax, FN49 the lack of any mention of tribal severance taxes defeats the argu-
ment*189 that all parties were aware as a matter of law that a severance tax could be imposed
at any time as a condition to the continued performance of a mineral lease.
FN49. The statute did authorize the collection of severance taxes by the States. Peti-
tioners have argued that this authorization pre-empted any tribal power to impose a
comparable tax. As recognized by the Court of Appeals, however, the legislative his-
tory indicates that Congress simply did not consider the question of tribal taxes on
mineral output from reservation lands. 617 F.2d 537, 547 (CA10 1980).
Thus, nothing in the leases themselves or in any Act of Congress conveyed an indication
that petitioners could accept the rights conferred by the leases only by accepting a condition
that they pay any subsequently enacted severance tax. Nor could such a condition be pre-
sumed from prior taxing activity of the Tribe. In my opinion it is clear that the parties negoti-
ated the leases in question with absolutely no expectation that a severance tax could later be
imposed; in the contemplation of the parties, the conditions governing petitioners' right to ex-
tract oil and gas were not subject to change during the terms of the agreements. There simply
is no support for the proposition that the Tribe retained the power in the leases to impose an
additional condition on petitioners' right to enter the reservation and extract oil and gas from
reservation lands. Since that authority was not retained, the Tribe does not now have the
power to alter unilaterally the terms of the agreement and impose an additional burden on pe-
titioners' right to do business on the reservation. FN50
FN50. The Secretary of the Interior argues that a license or franchise issued by a gov-
ernmental body does not prevent the later imposition of a tax unless the right to tax
has been specifically surrendered in terms which admit of no other reasonable inter-
pretation. Brief for Secretary of Interior 13, n. 7 (quoting St. Louis v. United R. Co.,
210 U.S. 266, 280, 28 S.Ct. 630, 634, 52 L.Ed. 1054). See also New Orleans City &
Lake R. Co. v. New Orleans, 143 U.S. 192, 195, 12 S.Ct. 406, 407, 36 L.Ed. 121; New
York Transit Corp. v. City of New York, 303 U.S. 573, 590-593, 58 S.Ct. 721, 729-31,
82 L.Ed. 1024. The principal issue in these cases cited by the Secretary was whether
the retroactive imposition of a franchise tax violated the Contract Clause of the Consti-

102 S.Ct. 894 Page 54
455 U.S. 130, 102 S.Ct. 894, 71 L.Ed.2d 21
(Cite as: 455 U.S. 130, 102 S.Ct. 894)
tution or was so fundamentally unfair as to constitute a denial of due process in viola-

tion of the Fourteenth Amendment. Although this argument was by no means frivol-
ous, cf. Puerto Rico v. Russell & Co., 315 U.S. 610, 62 S.Ct. 784, 86 L.Ed. 1062, no
such issue is raised here. These cases are distinguishable from the instant cases be-
cause Indian tribes do not have the same attributes of sovereignty as do States and their
subdivisions. See supra, at 917-920.
*190 **929 In these cases, the Tribe seeks to impose a tax on the very activity that the
leases granted petitioners the right to undertake. As Solicitor Margold wrote long ago:
Over tribal lands, the tribe has the rights of a landowner as well as the rights of a local
government, dominion as well as sovereignty. But on all the lands of the reservation, whether
owned by the tribe, by members thereof, or by outsiders, the tribe has the sovereign power of
determining the conditions upon which persons shall be permitted to enter its domain, to
reside therein, and to do business, provided only such determination is consistent with applic-
able Federal laws and does not infringe any vested rights of persons now occupying reserva-
tion land under lawful authority. 55 I. D., at 50 (emphasis added).
Petitioners were granted authority by the Tribe to extract oil and gas from reservation
lands. The Tribe now seeks to change retroactively the conditions of that authority. These pe-
titioners happen to be prosperous oil companies. Moreover, it may be sound policy to find ad-
ditional sources of revenue to better the economic conditions of many Indian tribes. If this ret-
roactive imposition of a tax on oil companies is permissible, however, an Indian tribe may
with equal legitimacy contract with outsiders for the construction of a school or a hospital, or
for the rendition of medical or technical services, and then-after the contract is partially per-
formed-change the terms of the bargain by imposing a gross receipts tax on the outsider. If the
Court is willing to ignore the risk of such unfair treatment of a local contractor or a local doc-
tor because the Secretary of the Interior has the power to veto a tribal tax, it must equate the
unbridled discretion of a political appointee with the protection afforded by rules of law. That
equation is unacceptable to me. Neither wealth, political opportunity, nor past transgressions
can justify denying any person the protection of the law.
U.S.N.M.,1982.
Merrion v. Jicarilla Apache Tribe
455 U.S. 130, 102 S.Ct. 894, 71 L.Ed.2d 21
END OF DOCUMENT

Date of Printing: Apr 29, 2011
KEYCITE
Merrion v. Jicarilla Apache Tribe, 455 U.S. 130, 102 S.Ct. 894, 71 L.Ed.2d 21
(U.S.N.M.,Jan 25, 1982) (NO. 80-11, 80-15)
History
Direct History
1 Merrion v. Jicarilla Apache Tribe, 617 F.2d 537 (10th Cir.(N.M.) Feb 22, 1980)
(NO. 78-1154, 78-1251)
Certiorari Granted by
2 Merrion v. Jicarilla Apache Tribe, 449 U.S. 820, 101 S.Ct. 71, 66 L.Ed.2d 21
(U.S.N.M. Oct 06, 1980) (NO. 80-11, 80-15)
AND Judgment Affirmed by
=> 3 Merrion v. Jicarilla Apache Tribe, 455 U.S. 130, 102 S.Ct. 894, 71 L.Ed.2d 21
(U.S.N.M. Jan 25, 1982) (NO. 80-11, 80-15)
AND Appeal After Remand
4 Amoco Production Co. v. Jicarilla Apache Tribe, 842 F.2d 1200 (10th Cir.(N.M.)
Mar 24, 1988) (NO. 82-1502)
Negative Citing References (U.S.A.)

Distinguished by
5 Donovan v. Coeur d'Alene Tribal Farm, 751 F.2d 1113, 12 O.S.H. Cas. (BNA)
1169, 1984-1985 O.S.H.D. (CCH) P 27,162 (9th Cir. Jan 15, 1985) (NO.
84-7031) HN: 23 (S.Ct.)
6 Squaxin Island Tribe v. State of Wash., 781 F.2d 715, 4 Fed.R.Serv.3d 881 (9th
Cir.(Wash.) Jan 24, 1986) (NO. 85-3509)
7 Hughes Communications Galaxy, Inc. v. U.S., 998 F.2d 953, 38 Cont.Cas.Fed.
(CCH) P 76,535 (Fed.Cir. Jul 07, 1993) (NO. 92-5137), rehearing denied, in banc
suggestion declined (Oct 26, 1993)
8 A-1 Contractors v. Strate, 76 F.3d 930, 64 USLW 2537 (8th Cir.(N.D.) Feb 16,
1996) (NO. 92-3359) HN: 2,5,7 (S.Ct.)
9 Environmental Technology Council v. Sierra Club, 98 F.3d 774, 65 USLW 2319,
43 ERC 1353, 27 Envtl. L. Rep. 20,295 (4th Cir.(S.C.) Oct 15, 1996) (NO.
95-2008, 95-2245) HN: 24,33,34 (S.Ct.)
10 Air Transport Ass'n of America v. City and County of San Francisco, 992
F.Supp. 1149, 158 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2138, 76 Fair Empl.Prac.Cas. (BNA) 1109,
22 Employee Benefits Cas. 1116, Pens. Plan Guide (CCH) P 23947Q (N.D.Cal.
2011 Thomson Reuters. All rights reserved.

Apr 10, 1998) (NO. 97-1763 CW) HN: 31 (S.Ct.)
11 In re Haines, 245 B.R. 401 (D.Mont. Jan 26, 2000) (NO. CV 99-67-BLG-JDS)
HN: 2,7,8 (S.Ct.)
12 Big Horn County Elec. Co-op., Inc. v. Adams, 219 F.3d 944, 00 Cal. Daily Op.
Serv. 5805, 00 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 5936, 2000 Daily Journal D.A.R. 7763 (9th
Cir.(Mont.) Jul 14, 2000) (NO. 99-35799) HN: 3,8,10 (S.Ct.)
13 Atkinson Trading Co., Inc. v. Shirley, 532 U.S. 645, 121 S.Ct. 1825, 149 L.Ed.2d
889, 01 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 4271, 2001 Daily Journal D.A.R. 5253, 14 Fla. L.
Weekly Fed. S 265, 2001 DJCAR 2675 (U.S.N.M. May 29, 2001) (NO. 00-454)
HN: 2,8,24 (S.Ct.)
14 Com. v. Philip Morris Inc., 448 Mass. 836, 864 N.E.2d 505 (Mass. Apr 23, 2007)
(NO. SJC-09889) HN: 19,21 (S.Ct.)
15 Plains Commerce Bank v. Long Family Land and Cattle Co., 554 U.S. 316, 128
S.Ct. 2709, 171 L.Ed.2d 457, 76 USLW 4558, 08 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 7913,
2008 Daily Journal D.A.R. 9457, 21 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 451 (U.S. Jun 25,
2008) (NO. 07-411) HN: 1,8 (S.Ct.)
16 Ute Mountain Ute Tribe v. Homans, 2009 WL 7809263 (D.N.M. Oct 02, 2009)
(NO. CIV 07-772 JP/WDS) HN: 4,17,25 (S.Ct.)
17 Red Mesa Unified School Dist. v. Yellowhair, 2010 WL 3855183 (D.Ariz. Sep
28, 2010) (NO. CV-09-8071-PCT-PGR) HN: 8,10,11 (S.Ct.)
Court Documents
Appellate Court Documents (U.S.A.)
U.S. Appellate Briefs

18 J. Gregory MERRION and Robert L. Bayless, d1b1a Merrion and Bayless, et al.,
Petitioners, v. JICARILLA APACHE TRIBE, Jicarilla Apache Tribal Council,
and Cecil Andrus, Secretary of the Interior, Respondents. (No. 80-11) Amoco
Production Company and Marathon Oil Company, Petitioners, v. Jicarilla Apa,
1980 WL 339292 (Appellate Brief) (U.S. Oct. Term 1980) Brief for Respondent
Jicarilla Apache Tribe (NO. 80-11, 80-15)
19 J. Gregory MERRION & Robert L. Bayless, d1b1a Merrion and Bayless, et al.,
Petitioners, v. JICARILLA APACHE TRIBE, et al., Respondents. Amoco Pro-
duction Company and Marathon Oil Company, Petitioners, v. Jicarilla Apache
Tribe, et al., Respondents., 1980 WL 339294 (Appellate Brief) (U.S. Oct. Term
1980) Motion for Leave to File Brief Amicus Curiae on Behalf of Mountain
States Legal Foundation as Amicus Curiae in Support of Petitioners and
Brief of the Mountain States Legal Foundation as Amicus Curiae (NO. 80-11,
80-15)
20 J. Gregory MERRION, et al., Petitioners, v. JICARILLA APACHE TRIBE, et
al., Respondents. Amoco Production Company, et al., Petitioners, v. Jicarilla
Apache Tribe, et al., Respondents., 1980 WL 339295 (Appellate Brief) (U.S. Oct.

Term 1980) Brief of the States of New Mexico, North Dakota, Utah and
Wyoming as Amici Curiae (NO. 80-11, 80-15)
21 J. Gregory MERRION, et al., Petitioners, v. JICARILLA APACHE TRIBE, et.
al., Respondents., 1980 WL 339296 (Appellate Brief) (U.S. Oct. Term 1980) Mo-
tion for Leave to File Brief Amicus Curiae and Brief of Amici Curiae (NO.
80-11, 80-15)
Apache Tribe, et al., Respondents., 1980 WL 339297 (Appellate Brief) (U.S. Oct.
Term 1980) Motion for Leave to File Brief Amicus Curiae and Brief Amicus
Curiae of Westmoreland Resources, Inc (NO. 80-11, 80-15)
23 J. Gregory MERRION and Robert L. Bayless, d1b1a Merrion and Bayless; et al.,
Petitioners, v. JICARILLA APACHE TRIBE; et al., Respondents., 1980 WL
339293 (Appellate Brief) (U.S. Nov. 20, 1980) Brief of Amicus Curiae State of
Montana in Support of Petitioners (NO. 80-11)
24 J. Gregory MERRION, et al., Petitioners, v. JICARILLA APACHE TRIBE, et al.
Amoco Production Company and Marathon Oil Company, Petitioners, v. Jicarilla
Apache Tribe, et al., 1981 WL 389704 (Appellate Brief) (U.S. Jan. 1981) Brief
for the Secretary of the Interior (NO. 80-11, 80-15)
25 J. Gregory MERRION & Robert L. Bayless, d1b1a Merrion and Bayless, et al.,
Petitioners, v. JICARILLA APACHE TRIBE, et al., Respondents. Amoco Pro-
duction Company and Marathon Oil Company, Petitioners, v. Jicarilla Apache
Tribe, et al., Respondents., 1981 WL 389705 (Appellate Brief) (U.S. Jan. 22,
1981) Motion for Leave to File Brief Amicus Curiae on Behalf of the Navajo
Tribe of Indians as Amicus Curiae in Support of Respondents and Brief of
the Navajo Tribe of Indians as Amicus Curiae in Support of (NO. 80-11,
80-15)
26 J. Gregory MERRION, et al., Petitioners, v. JICARILLA APACHE TRIBE, et al.
Amoco Production Company and Marathon Oil Company, Petitioners, v. Jicarilla
Apache Tribe, et al., 1981 WL 389707 (Appellate Brief) (U.S. Aug. 19, 1981)
Supplemental Brief for the Secretary of the Interior (NO. 80-11, 80-15)
27 J. Gregory MERRION and Robert L. Bayless, d1b1a1 Merrion and Bayless, et
al., Petitioners, v. JICARILLA APACHE TRIBE, Jicarilla Apache Tribal Coun-
cil, and Cecil Andrus, Secretary of the Interior, Respondents. (No. 80-11) Amoco
Production Company, and Marathon Oil Company, Petitioners, v. Jicarilla A,
1981 WL 389706 (Appellate Brief) (U.S. Sep. 23, 1981) Supplemental Brief of
Respondent Jicarilla Apache Tribe (NO. 80-11, 80-15)
28 AMOCO PRODUCTION COMPANY and Marathon Oil Company, Petitioners,
v. JICARILLA APACHE TRIBE, Jicarilla Apache Tribal Council, Gwendolyn
Velarde, Treasurer of the Jicarilla Apache Tribe, and Cecil Andrus, Secretary of
the Interior, Respondents., 1981 WL 389629 (Appellate Brief) (U.S. Oct. 20,
1981) Supplemental Brief for Petitioners%n*%n (NO. 80-15, WITH80-11)

Date of Printing: Apr 29, 2011
KEYCITE
Merrion v. Jicarilla Apache Tribe, 455 U.S. 130, 102 S.Ct. 894, 71 L.Ed.2d 21
(U.S.N.M. Jan 25, 1982) (NO. 80-11, 80-15)
Citing References
Negative Cases (U.S.A.)
Distinguished by
1 Red Mesa Unified School Dist. v. Yellowhair, 2010 WL 3855183, *2+ (D.Ariz.
Sep 28, 2010) (NO. CV-09-8071-PCT-PGR) " HN: 8,10,11 (S.Ct.)
2 Ute Mountain Ute Tribe v. Homans, 2009 WL 7809263, *16+ (D.N.M. Oct 02,
2009) (NO. CIV 07-772 JP/WDS) " HN: 4,17,25 (S.Ct.)
3 Plains Commerce Bank v. Long Family Land and Cattle Co., 128 S.Ct. 2709,
2722+, 554 U.S. 316+, 171 L.Ed.2d 457, 457+, 76 USLW 4558, 4558+, 08 Cal.
Daily Op. Serv. 7913, 7913+, 2008 Daily Journal D.A.R. 9457, 9457+, 21 Fla. L.
Weekly Fed. S 451, 451+ (U.S. Jun 25, 2008) (NO. 07-411) " HN: 1,8
(S.Ct.)
4 Com. v. Philip Morris Inc., 864 N.E.2d 505, 514, 448 Mass. 836, 848 (Mass. Apr
23, 2007) (NO. SJC-09889) " HN: 19,21 (S.Ct.)
5 Atkinson Trading Co., Inc. v. Shirley, 121 S.Ct. 1825, 1827+, 532 U.S. 645,
645+, 149 L.Ed.2d 889, 889+, 01 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 4271, 4271+, 2001 Daily
Journal D.A.R. 5253, 5253+, 14 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 265, 265+, 2001 DJCAR
2675, 2675+ (U.S.N.M. May 29, 2001) (NO. 00-454) " HN: 2,8,24
(S.Ct.)
6 Big Horn County Elec. Co-op., Inc. v. Adams, 219 F.3d 944, 952+, 00 Cal. Daily
Op. Serv. 5805, 5805+, 00 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 5936, 5936+, 2000 Daily Journal
D.A.R. 7763, 7763+ (9th Cir.(Mont.) Jul 14, 2000) (NO. 99-35799) " HN:
3,8,10 (S.Ct.)
7 In re Haines, 245 B.R. 401, 404+ (D.Mont. Jan 26, 2000) (NO. CV
99-67-BLG-JDS) HN: 2,7,8 (S.Ct.)
8 Air Transport Ass'n of America v. City and County of San Francisco, 992
F.Supp. 1149, 1161+, 158 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2138, 2138+, 76 Fair Empl.Prac.Cas.
(BNA) 1109, 1109+, 22 Employee Benefits Cas. 1116, 1116+, Pens. Plan Guide
(CCH) P 23947Q, 23947Q+ (N.D.Cal. Apr 10, 1998) (NO. 97-1763 CW)
HN: 31 (S.Ct.)
9 Environmental Technology Council v. Sierra Club, 98 F.3d 774, 783+, 65 USLW
2319, 2319+, 43 ERC 1353, 1353+, 27 Envtl. L. Rep. 20,295, 20295+ (4th
Cir.(S.C.) Oct 15, 1996) (NO. 95-2008, 95-2245) HN: 24,33,34 (S.Ct.)
10 A-1 Contractors v. Strate, 76 F.3d 930, 934+, 64 USLW 2537, 2537+ (8th

Cir.(N.D.) Feb 16, 1996) (NO. 92-3359) " HN: 2,5,7 (S.Ct.)
11 Hughes Communications Galaxy, Inc. v. U.S., 998 F.2d 953, 958+, 38
Cont.Cas.Fed. (CCH) P 76,535, 76535+ (Fed.Cir. Jul 07, 1993) (NO. 92-5137)
12 Squaxin Island Tribe v. State of Wash., 781 F.2d 715, 720+, 4 Fed.R.Serv.3d
881, 881+ (9th Cir.(Wash.) Jan 24, 1986) (NO. 85-3509)
13 Donovan v. Coeur d'Alene Tribal Farm, 751 F.2d 1113, 1117+, 12 O.S.H. Cas.
(BNA) 1169, 1169+, 1984-1985 O.S.H.D. (CCH) P 27,162, 27162+ (9th Cir. Jan
15, 1985) (NO. 84-7031) HN: 23 (S.Ct.)
Positive Cases (U.S.A.)

Examined
14 Nevada v. Hicks, 121 S.Ct. 2304, 2310+, 533 U.S. 353, 360+, 150 L.Ed.2d 398,
398+, 69 USLW 4528, 4528+, 01 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 5248, 5248+, 2001 Daily
Journal D.A.R. 6461, 6461+, 14 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 430, 430+, 2001 DJCAR
3522, 3522+ (U.S. Jun 25, 2001) (NO. 99-1994) " HN: 1,5,8 (S.Ct.)
15 U.S. v. Winstar Corp., 116 S.Ct. 2432, 2453+, 518 U.S. 839, 872+, 135 L.Ed.2d
964, 964+, 64 USLW 4739, 4739+, 42 Cont.Cas.Fed. (CCH) P 77,358, 77358+,
96 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 4890, 4890+, 96 Daily Journal D.A.R. 7865, 7865+ (U.S.
Jul 01, 1996) (NO. 95-865) " HN: 19,20,21 (S.Ct.)
16 Brendale v. Confederated Tribes and Bands of Yakima Indian Nation, 109 S.Ct.
2994, 3005+, 492 U.S. 408, 425+, 106 L.Ed.2d 343, 343+, 57 USLW 4999,
4999+ (U.S.Wash. Jun 29, 1989) (NO. 87-1622, 87-1697, 87-1711) " HN: 5,8,10
(S.Ct.)
17 Cotton Petroleum Corp. v. New Mexico, 109 S.Ct. 1698, 1702+, 490 U.S. 163,
166+, 104 L.Ed.2d 209, 209+, 57 USLW 4445, 4445+ (U.S.N.M. Apr 25, 1989)
(NO. 87-1327) " HN: 24,35,36 (S.Ct.)
18 Burlington Northern R. Co. v. Blackfeet Tribe of Blackfeet Indian Reservation,
924 F.2d 899, 902+ (9th Cir.(Mont.) Jan 25, 1991) (NO. 88-4428, 88-4429) "
HN: 23,24 (S.Ct.)
19 Kerr-McGee Corp. v. Navajo Tribe of Indians, 731 F.2d 597, 599+ (9th
Cir.(Ariz.) Apr 17, 1984) (NO. 82-5725, 82-5736) " HN: 2,24,36 (S.Ct.)
20 Babbitt Ford, Inc. v. Navajo Indian Tribe, 710 F.2d 587, 592+, 36 UCC Rep.Serv.
1809, 1809+ (9th Cir.(Ariz.) Jul 15, 1983) (NO. 81-6052, 81-6054, 82-5002) "
HN: 8,10,24 (S.Ct.)
21 N.L.R.B. v. Pueblo of San Juan, 276 F.3d 1186, 1193+, 169 L.R.R.M. (BNA)
2129, 2129+, 145 Lab.Cas. P 11,225, 11225+, 146 Lab.Cas. P 10,090, 10090+
(10th Cir.(N.M.) Jan 11, 2002) (NO. 99-2011, 99-2030) " HN: 2,7,23 (S.Ct.)
22 Atkinson Trading Co. v. Shirley, 210 F.3d 1247, 1254+, 2000 CJ C.A.R. 2719,
2719+ (10th Cir.(N.M.) May 02, 2000) (NO. 98-2247) " HN: 2,8,23 (S.Ct.)
23 Southland Royalty Co. v. Navajo Tribe of Indians, 715 F.2d 486, 488+ (10th

Cir.(Utah) Aug 22, 1983) (NO. 80-2035, 80-2036, 80-2037, 80-2038, 80-2067,
80-2159) " HN: 17,24,25 (S.Ct.)
24 Donovan v. Navajo Forest Products Industries, 692 F.2d 709, 712+, 10 O.S.H.
Cas. (BNA) 2159, 2159+, 1982 O.S.H.D. (CCH) P 26,305, 26305+ (10th Cir.
Nov 08, 1982) (NO. 80-2251) " HN: 5,8,23 (S.Ct.)
25 Mescalero Apache Tribe v. State of N. M., 677 F.2d 55, 56+ (10th Cir.(N.M.)
Apr 26, 1982) (NO. 78-1790) " HN: 2,5,23 (S.Ct.)
26 Water Wheel Camp Recreational Area, Inc. v. LaRance, 2009 WL 3089216, *5+
(D.Ariz. Sep 23, 2009) (NO. CV-08-0474-PHX-DGC) " HN: 20,21,22 (S.Ct.)
27 Swift Transp., Inc. v. John, 546 F.Supp. 1185, 1189+ (D.Ariz. Sep 03, 1982)
(NO. CIV. 81-1555 PCT VAC) " HN: 23,33,35 (S.Ct.)
28 Burlington Northern R.R. v. Fort Peck Tribal Executive Bd., 701 F.Supp. 1493,
1495+ (D.Mont. Nov 23, 1988) (NO. CV-87-055-GF, CV-87-120-GF) " HN:
2,8,34 (S.Ct.)
29 Mustang Fuel Corp. v. Hatch, 890 F.Supp. 995, 1000+, 132 Oil & Gas Rep. 437,
437+ (W.D.Okla. Jul 05, 1995) (NO. CIV-88-1801-A, CIV-88-1954-A) " HN:
23,24,36 (S.Ct.)
30 Conoco, Inc. v. Shoshone and Arapahoe Tribes, 569 F.Supp. 801, 803+ (D.Wyo.
Aug 31, 1983) (NO. C80-0181-K, C80-208-K) " HN: 24,35,36 (S.Ct.)
31 In re Haines, 233 B.R. 480, 487+ (Bankr.D.Mont. May 10, 1999) (NO.
98-11797-13) HN: 8,23,24 (S.Ct.)
32 John v. Baker, 982 P.2d 738, 748+ (Alaska Sep 08, 1999) (NO. 5174, S-8099) "
HN: 1,8,14 (S.Ct.)
33 In re Atkinson Trading Co., Inc., 1 Am. Tribal Law 451, 452+, 7 Nav. R. 275,
275+ (Navajo Aug 22, 1997) (NO. SC-CV-54-95) " HN: 1,2,7 (S.Ct.)
Discussed
34 Bowen v. Public Agencies Opposed To Social Sec. Entrapment, 106 S.Ct. 2390,
2397+, 477 U.S. 41, 52+, 91 L.Ed.2d 35, 35+, 54 USLW 4699, 4699+, 14
Soc.Sec.Rep.Serv. 3, 3+, Unempl.Ins.Rep. (CCH) P 16,785, 16785+ (U.S.Cal.
Jun 19, 1986) (NO. 85-521) " HN: 18,20,21 (S.Ct.)
35 Kerr-McGee Corp. v. Navajo Tribe of Indians, 105 S.Ct. 1900, 1902+, 471 U.S.
195, 198+, 85 L.Ed.2d 200, 200+, 53 USLW 4451, 4451+ (U.S.Ariz. Apr 16,
1985) (NO. 84-68) " HN: 1,33 (S.Ct.)
36 New Mexico v. Mescalero Apache Tribe, 103 S.Ct. 2378, 2385+, 462 U.S. 324,
333+, 76 L.Ed.2d 611, 611+ (U.S.N.M. Jun 13, 1983) (NO. 82-331)
37 John v. City of Salamanca, 845 F.2d 37, 42+ (2nd Cir.(N.Y.) Apr 19, 1988) (NO.
203, 87-7404) HN: 24 (S.Ct.)
38 Charter Federal Sav. Bank v. Office of Thrift Supervision, 976 F.2d 203, 211+,
61 USLW 2218, 2218+ (4th Cir.(Va.) Sep 25, 1992) (NO. 91-2647, 91-2708) "
HN: 18,21,22 (S.Ct.)

39 Fednav, Ltd. v. Chester, 547 F.3d 607, 624+, 67 ERC 1993, 1993+, 2008 A.M.C.
2783, 2783+, 2008 Fed.App. 0414P, 0414P+ (6th Cir.(Mich.) Nov 21, 2008)
(NO. 07-2083) " HN: 30,31,32 (S.Ct.)
40 A-1 Contractors v. Strate, 1994 WL 666051, *5+, 63 USLW 2359, 2359+ (8th
Cir.(N.D.) Nov 29, 1994) (NO. 92-3359) " HN: 23 (S.Ct.)
41 Parkridge Investors Ltd. Partnership by Mortimer v. Farmers Home Admin., 13
F.3d 1192, 1198+, 62 USLW 2443, 2443+ (8th Cir.(S.D.) Jan 07, 1994) (NO.
93-1270SD) " HN: 18,20,21 (S.Ct.)
42 Peabody Coal Co. v. Navajo Nation, 75 F.3d 457, 464+, 96 Cal. Daily Op. Serv.
317, 317+, 96 Daily Journal D.A.R. 496, 496+ (9th Cir.(Ariz.) Jan 16, 1996)
(NO. 94-15647, 94-15650, 94-16622) " HN: 4,25,36 (S.Ct.)
43 U.S. ex rel. Morongo Band of Mission Indians v. Rose, 34 F.3d 901, 906+, 30
Fed.R.Serv.3d 813, 813+ (9th Cir.(Cal.) Sep 08, 1994) (NO. 92-56180) " HN: 2,5
(S.Ct.)
44 Queets Band of Indians v. State of Wash., 765 F.2d 1399, 1403+ (9th Cir.(Wash.)
Jul 17, 1985) (NO. 83-3644, 83-3646) " HN: 29,30 (S.Ct.)
45 Chemehuevi Indian Tribe v. California State Bd. of Equalization, 757 F.2d 1047,
1053+ (9th Cir.(Cal.) Apr 12, 1985) (NO. 83-2431, 83-2481) " HN: 20,23 (S.Ct.)
46 Hardin v. White Mountain Apache Tribe, 761 F.2d 1285, 1288+ (9th Cir.(Ariz.)
Feb 26, 1985) (NO. 84-1912, 84-2164) " HN: 10,12,21 (S.Ct.)
47 Hardin v. White Mountain Apache Tribe, 779 F.2d 476, 479+ (9th Cir.(Ariz.) Feb
26, 1985) (NO. 84-1912, 84-2164) " HN: 10,12 (S.Ct.)
48 Snow v. Quinault Indian Nation, 709 F.2d 1319, 1322+ (9th Cir.(Wash.) Jul 07,
1983) (NO. 81-3042) " HN: 1,2,7 (S.Ct.)
49 Blackfeet Tribe of Indians v. Groff, 729 F.2d 1185, 1188+ (9th Cir.(Mont.) Dec
14, 1982) (NO. 81-3041) HN: 17,24 (S.Ct.)
50 Cardin v. De La Cruz, 671 F.2d 363, 366+ (9th Cir.(Wash.) Mar 15, 1982) (NO.
80-3244) "
51 Dry v. U.S., 235 F.3d 1249, 1254+, 2000 CJ C.A.R. 6659, 6659+ (10th
Cir.(Okla.) Dec 19, 2000) (NO. 99-7110) HN: 20,21 (S.Ct.)
52 E.E.O.C. v. Cherokee Nation, 871 F.2d 937, 938+, 57 USLW 2568, 2568+, 49
Fair Empl.Prac.Cas. (BNA) 1074, 1074+, 49 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 38,875, 38875+
(10th Cir.(Okla.) Mar 28, 1989) (NO. 88-2092) " HN: 23 (S.Ct.)
53 Amoco Production Co. v. Jicarilla Apache Tribe, 842 F.2d 1200, 1201+ (10th
Cir.(N.M.) Mar 24, 1988) (NO. 82-1502) HN: 33 (S.Ct.)
54 Tenneco Oil Co. v. Sac and Fox Tribe of Indians of Oklahoma, 725 F.2d 572,
574+ (10th Cir.(Okla.) Jan 17, 1984) (NO. 83-1061) " HN: 1 (S.Ct.)
55 U.S. v. Park Place Associates, Ltd., 2005 WL 6066062, *17+ (C.D.Cal. Jun 13,
2005) (NO. CV 04-8387 DT CTX) " HN: 20 (S.Ct.)
56 Westlands Water Dist. v. U.S. Dept. of Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, 850
F.Supp. 1388, 1403+ (E.D.Cal. Mar 03, 1994) (NO. CV-F-93-5327) HN:

19,20,21 (S.Ct.)
57 Lifgren v. Yeutter, 767 F.Supp. 1473, 1485+ (D.Minn. Jun 27, 1991) (NO. CIV.
4-89-912) " HN: 19,20,21 (S.Ct.)
58 Big Horn County Elec. Co-op., Inc. v. Adams, 53 F.Supp.2d 1047, 1052+
(D.Mont. Apr 02, 1999) (NO. CV 98-43-BLG-JDS) " HN: 8,24 (S.Ct.)
59 Reservation Telephone Co-op v. Henry, 278 F.Supp.2d 1015, 1020+ (D.N.D. Aug
26, 2003) (NO. A4-02-121, A4-02-126) " HN: 1,5 (S.Ct.)
60 State of Nev. v. Hicks, 944 F.Supp. 1455, 1461+ (D.Nev. Sep 30, 1996) (NO.
CV-N-94-351-DWH) HN: 8,10,24 (S.Ct.)
61 Kerr-McGee Corp. v. Farley, 88 F.Supp.2d 1219, 1227+ (D.N.M. Mar 10, 2000)
(NO. CIV. 95-0438MVRLP) HN: 23 (S.Ct.)
62 Cheromiah v. U.S., 55 F.Supp.2d 1295, 1302+ (D.N.M. Jun 29, 1999) (NO. CIV
97-1418 MV/RLP) " HN: 1 (S.Ct.)
63 N.L.R.B. v. Pueblo of San Juan, 30 F.Supp.2d 1348, 1351+, 159 L.R.R.M.
(BNA) 2975, 2975+, 137 Lab.Cas. P 10,312, 10312+ (D.N.M. Nov 30, 1998)
(NO. CIV 98-35 MV/RLP) " HN: 23 (S.Ct.)
64 Security Federal Sav. and Loan Ass'n of Albuquerque v. Federal Sav. and Loan
Ins. Corp., 796 F.Supp. 1435, 1445+ (D.N.M. Nov 05, 1991) (NO. CIV 89-1358
JC/RWM) " HN: 18,21,22 (S.Ct.)
65 Bowen v. Doyle, 880 F.Supp. 99, 113+ (W.D.N.Y. Feb 27, 1995) (NO.
95-CV-0043A) "
66 Education Assistance Corp. v. Cavazos, 1989 WL 141662, *8+ (D.S.D. Jul 14,
1989) (NO. CIV. 88-1054) " HN: 18,21 (S.Ct.)
67 MacArthur v. San Juan County, 391 F.Supp.2d 895, 935+ (D.Utah Oct 12, 2005)
(NO. 2:00 CV 584 J) " HN: 2,5 (S.Ct.)
68 Superior Oil Co. v. U.S., 605 F.Supp. 674, 678+ (D.Utah Jan 29, 1985) (NO. C-
82-0751J) " HN: 8,17,24 (S.Ct.)
69 Nisqually Indian Tribe v. Gregoire, 2008 WL 1999830, *3+ (W.D.Wash. May 08,
2008) (NO. 08-5069RBL) "
70 Cuyahoga Metropolitan Housing Authority v. U.S., 57 Fed.Cl. 751, 763+
(Fed.Cl. Sep 22, 2003) (NO. 01-251C, 01-416C, 01-46C) " HN: 19,20,21 (S.Ct.)
71 Adams v. U.S., 42 Fed.Cl. 463, 480+ (Fed.Cl. Oct 30, 1998) (NO. 96-699C) "
HN: 18,19,21 (S.Ct.)
72 Winstar Corp. v. U.S., 25 Cl.Ct. 541, 545+, 61 USLW 2127, 2127+ (Cl.Ct. Apr
21, 1992) (NO. 90-8C) " HN: 18,21,22 (S.Ct.)
73 Hughes Communications Galaxy, Inc. v. U.S., 26 Cl.Ct. 123, 137+, 60 USLW
2716, 2716+, 37 Cont.Cas.Fed. (CCH) P 76,307, 76307+ (Cl.Ct. Apr 13, 1992)
(NO. 91-1032C) " HN: 18,21,22 (S.Ct.)
74 Burbank-Glendale-Pasadena Airport Authority v. City of Burbank, 76
Cal.Rptr.2d 297, 301+, 64 Cal.App.4th 1217, 1224+, 98 Cal. Daily Op. Serv.
4640, 4640+, 98 Daily Journal D.A.R. 6564, 6564+ (Cal.App. 2 Dist. Jun 16,

1998) (NO. B116038) " HN: 29,31 (S.Ct.)
75 Penobscot Nation v. Stilphen, 461 A.2d 478, 485+ (Me. Jun 07, 1983) (NO.
3239) " HN: 2 (S.Ct.)
76 Cotton Petroleum v. State, 745 P.2d 1170, 1172+, 106 N.M. 517, 519+
(N.M.App. Sep 17, 1987) (NO. 9268) " HN: 33,35,36 (S.Ct.)
77 Spota ex rel. Unkechaug Indian Nation v. Jackson, 853 N.Y.S.2d 520, 525+, 883
N.E.2d 344, 349+, 10 N.Y.3d 46, 53+, 2008 N.Y. Slip Op. 01029, 01029+ (N.Y.
Feb 07, 2008) (NO. 1, 2) " HN: 1 (S.Ct.)
78 Airway Arms, Inc. v. Moon Area School Dist., 446 A.2d 234, 240+, 498 Pa. 286,
298+, 4 Ed. Law Rep. 1144, 1144+ (Pa. May 28, 1982) (NO. 81-1-66, 81-1-67) "
HN: 30,31,32 (S.Ct.)
79 Northwest Airlines, Inc. v. Wisconsin Dept. of Revenue, 717 N.W.2d 280, 287+,
293 Wis.2d 202, 217+, 2006 WI 88, 88+ (Wis. Jul 07, 2006) (NO. 2004AP319) "
HN: 30,31 (S.Ct.)
80 Mustang Fuel Corp. v. Cheyenne-Arapaho Tax Com'n, 1991 WL 733406, *2+, 2
Okla. Trib. 158, 166+ (Chey.-Arap. D.Ct. Jan 31, 1991) (NO. CNA-CIV-89-7)
HN: 1,5,8 (S.Ct.)
Cited
81 Kinnison v. Cherokee Nation, 1996 WL 1132747, *5, 5 Okla. Trib. 103, 103
(Cherokee Jun 03, 1996) (NO. JAT 96-03) HN: 20 (S.Ct.)
82 Wagnon v. Prairie Band Potawatomi Nation, 126 S.Ct. 676, 690, 546 U.S. 95,
116, 163 L.Ed.2d 429, 429, 74 USLW 4023, 4023, 05 Cal. Daily Op. Serv.
10,218, 10218, 2005 Daily Journal D.A.R. 13,941, 13941, 19 Fla. L. Weekly Fed.
S 13, 13 (U.S. Dec 06, 2005) (NO. 04-631) " (in dissent) HN: 1 (S.Ct.)
83 Northwest Airlines, Inc. v. County of Kent, Mich., 114 S.Ct. 855, 866+, 510 U.S.
355, 374+, 127 L.Ed.2d 183, 183+, 62 USLW 4103, 4103+, 73 A.F.T.R.2d
94-784, 94-784+ (U.S.Mich. Jan 24, 1994) (NO. 92-97) " HN: 31 (S.Ct.)
84 Duro v. Reina, 110 S.Ct. 2053, 2064, 495 U.S. 676, 694, 109 L.Ed.2d 693, 693,
58 USLW 4643, 4643 (U.S.Ariz. May 29, 1990) (NO. 88-6546) HN: 8 (S.Ct.)
85 Iowa Mut. Ins. Co. v. LaPlante, 107 S.Ct. 971, 975+, 480 U.S. 9, 14+, 94 L.Ed.2d
10, 10+, 55 USLW 4170, 4170+ (U.S.Mont. Feb 24, 1987) (NO. 85-1589) "
86 National Farmers Union Ins. Companies v. Crow Tribe of Indians, 105 S.Ct.
2447, 2452+, 471 U.S. 845, 852+, 85 L.Ed.2d 818, 818+, 53 USLW 4649, 4649+,
25 Ed. Law Rep. 30, 30+ (U.S.Mont. Jun 03, 1985) (NO. 84-320) HN: 9 (S.Ct.)
87 Sporhase v. Nebraska, ex rel. Douglas, 102 S.Ct. 3456, 3466, 458 U.S. 941, 960,
73 L.Ed.2d 1254, 1254, 12 Envtl. L. Rep. 20,749, 20749 (U.S.Neb. Jul 02, 1982)
(NO. 81-613)
88 Akins v. Penobscot Nation, 130 F.3d 482, 490+ (1st Cir.(Me.) Nov 17, 1997)
(NO. 97-1644) " HN: 2 (S.Ct.)
89 Rhode Island Higher Educ. Assistance Authority v. Secretary, U.S. Dept. of

Educ., 929 F.2d 844, 850, 66 Ed. Law Rep. 951, 951 (1st Cir.(R.I.) Apr 05, 1991)
(NO. 90-2118) HN: 19,21 (S.Ct.)
90 Doe v. Pataki, 481 F.3d 69, 79 (2nd Cir.(N.Y.) Mar 08, 2007) (NO.
06-2126-CV(L), 06-3709-CV(CON)) " HN: 19,21 (S.Ct.)
91 Oneida Indian Nation of New York v. City of Sherrill, New York, 337 F.3d 139,
153 (2nd Cir.(N.Y.) Jul 21, 2003) (NO. 01-7795, 01-7797) " HN: 1 (S.Ct.)
92 Reich v. Mashantucket Sand & Gravel, 95 F.3d 174, 176, 65 USLW 2186, 2186,
17 O.S.H. Cas. (BNA) 1747, 1747, 1995-1997 O.S.H.D. (CCH) P 31,137, 31137
(2nd Cir. Sep 06, 1996) (NO. 1722, 95-4200) HN: 16 (S.Ct.)
93 Tamarind Resort Associates v. Government of Virgin Islands, 138 F.3d 107, 112,
28 Envtl. L. Rep. 21,010, 21010 (3rd Cir.(Virgin Islands) Mar 09, 1998) (NO.
97-7020) " HN: 22 (S.Ct.)
94 Carteret Sav. Bank, F.A. v. Office of Thrift Supervision, 963 F.2d 567, 574, 60
USLW 2746, 2746 (3rd Cir.(N.J.) May 07, 1992) (NO. 91-5290, 91-5597) HN:
21 (S.Ct.)
95 Thomas v. Dugan, 168 F.3d 483, 483 (4th Cir.(N.C.) Dec 31, 1998) (Table, text
in WESTLAW, NO. 97-2717)
96 South Carolina State Educ. Assistance Authority v. Cavazos, 897 F.2d 1272,
1276, 59 Ed. Law Rep. 16, 16 (4th Cir.(N.C.) Mar 07, 1990) (NO. 89-2975,
89-2976, 89-2978, 89-2982) HN: 18 (S.Ct.)
97 Bank One, N.A. v. Shumake, 281 F.3d 507, 512+ (5th Cir.(Miss.) Feb 15, 2002)
(NO. 01-60228, 01-60229, 01-60230, 01-60231, 01-60232, 01-60233, 01-60234,
01-60235, 01-60236) HN: 2 (S.Ct.)
98 Enterprise Leasing Co. of Detroit v. County of Wayne, 191 F.3d 451, 451 (6th
Cir.(Mich.) Sep 14, 1999) (Table, text in WESTLAW, NO. 98-1278, 98-1398)
HN: 31 (S.Ct.)
99 Northwest Airlines, Inc. v. County of Kent, Mich., 955 F.2d 1054, 1063+ (6th
Cir.(Mich.) Feb 03, 1992) (NO. 90-1811, 90-2117) HN: 33 (S.Ct.)
100 Great Lakes Higher Educ. Corp. v. Cavazos, 911 F.2d 10, 17, 62 Ed. Law Rep.
434, 434 (7th Cir.(Wis.) Aug 29, 1990) (NO. 89-2748) HN: 19,21 (S.Ct.)
101 Indianapolis Airport Authority v. American Airlines, Inc., 733 F.2d 1262, 1266,
15 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. 1340, 1340 (7th Cir.(Ind.) May 10, 1984) (NO. 82-2774) "
HN: 31 (S.Ct.)
102 Charleston Housing Authority v. U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, 419 F.3d 729, 738+
(8th Cir.(Mo.) Aug 18, 2005) (NO. 04-1884, 04-2620) HN: 19,21 (S.Ct.)
103 Gaming World Intern., Ltd. v. White Earth Band of Chippewa Indians, 317 F.3d
840, 850, 186 A.L.R. Fed. 581, 581 (8th Cir.(Minn.) Jan 24, 2003) (NO. 01-3040)
"
104 Longie v. Pearson, 210 F.3d 379, 379 (8th Cir.(N.D.) Apr 21, 2000) (Table, text
in WESTLAW, NO. 99-4142)
105 Hall v. Babbitt, 208 F.3d 218, 218 (8th Cir.(N.D.) Mar 10, 2000) (Table, text in

WESTLAW, NO. 99-3806ND)
106 In re Otter Tail Power Co., 116 F.3d 1207, 1216 (8th Cir.(N.D.) Jun 23, 1997)
(NO. 96-3618, 96-3637) " HN: 1 (S.Ct.)
107 E.E.O.C. v. Fond du Lac Heavy Equipment and Const. Co., Inc., 986 F.2d 246,
248, 61 USLW 2525, 2525, 61 Fair Empl.Prac.Cas. (BNA) 105, 105, 60 Empl.
Prac. Dec. P 42,039, 42039 (8th Cir.(Minn.) Feb 19, 1993) (NO. 91-3561) " HN:
5 (S.Ct.)
108 State of S.D. v. Bourland, 949 F.2d 984, 994, 21 Fed.R.Serv.3d 1246, 1246 (8th
Cir.(S.D.) Nov 21, 1991) (NO. 90-5486, 90-5515)
109 Education Assistance Corp. v. Cavazos, 902 F.2d 617, 628+, 60 Ed. Law Rep.
413, 413+ (8th Cir.(S.D.) Apr 10, 1990) (NO. 89-5393) HN: 21 (S.Ct.)
110 Greywater v. Joshua, 846 F.2d 486, 490 (8th Cir.(N.D.) May 10, 1988) (NO.
87-5233) HN: 8 (S.Ct.)
111 Solis v. Matheson, 563 F.3d 425, 433+, 157 Lab.Cas. P 35,564, 35564+, 14 Wage
& Hour Cas.2d (BNA) 1350, 1350+, 09 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 4647, 4647+, 2009
Daily Journal D.A.R. 5631, 5631+ (9th Cir.(Wash.) Apr 20, 2009) (NO.
07-35633)
112 U.S. v. Smiskin, 487 F.3d 1260, 1270, 07 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 5485, 5485, 2007
Daily Journal D.A.R. 7070, 7070 (9th Cir.(Wash.) May 18, 2007) (NO.
05-30590, 05-30591) HN: 22 (S.Ct.)
113 Doe v. Kamehameha Schools/Bernice Pauahi Bishop Estate, 470 F.3d 827, 882,
214 Ed. Law Rep. 926, 926, 06 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 11,087, 11087, 2006 Daily
Journal D.A.R. 15,851, 15851 (9th Cir.(Hawai'i) Dec 05, 2006) (NO. 04-15044)
(in dissent)
114 Smith v. Salish Kootenai College, 434 F.3d 1127, 1139+, 06 Cal. Daily Op. Serv.
223, 223+, 2006 Daily Journal D.A.R. 342, 342+ (9th Cir.(Mont.) Jan 10, 2006)
(NO. 03-35306) " HN: 5,8,10 (S.Ct.)
115 Artichoke Joe's California Grand Casino v. Norton, 353 F.3d 712, 729, 03 Cal.
Daily Op. Serv. 11,019, 11019, 2003 Daily Journal D.A.R. 13,969, 13969 (9th
Cir.(Cal.) Dec 22, 2003) (NO. 02-16508) "
116 E.E.O.C. v. Karuk Tribe Housing Authority, 260 F.3d 1071, 1082, 86 Fair Em-
pl.Prac.Cas. (BNA) 705, 705, 80 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 40,686, 40686, 00 Cal. Daily
Op. Serv. 6977, 6977, 2001 Daily Journal D.A.R. 8571, 8571 (9th Cir.(Cal.) Aug
13, 2001) (NO. 00-16181) "
117 Burlington Northern R. Co. v. Red Wolf, 196 F.3d 1059, 1063+, 00 Cal. Daily
Op. Serv. 129, 129+, 1999 Daily Journal D.A.R. 11,575, 11575+, 2000 Daily
Journal D.A.R. 211, 211+ (9th Cir.(Mont.) Nov 17, 1999) (NO. 98-35502,
98-35539, 98-35541) HN: 7,8,10 (S.Ct.)
118 Klamath Water Users Protective Ass'n v. Patterson, 191 F.3d 1115, 1122, 99 Cal.
Daily Op. Serv. 7451, 7451, 1999 Daily Journal D.A.R. 9449, 9449 (9th Cir.(Or.)
Sep 09, 1999) (NO. 98-35708) HN: 18 (S.Ct.)
119 Klamath Water Users Protective Ass'n v. Patterson, 204 F.3d 1206, 1213, 49

ERC 1242, 1242, 00 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 706, 706, 200 Daily Journal D.A.R.
1093, 1093 (9th Cir.(Or.) Sep 09, 1999) (NO. 98-35708) HN: 18 (S.Ct.)
120 El Paso Natural Gas Co. v. Neztsosie, 136 F.3d 610, 619, 67 USLW 3479, 3479,
28 Envtl. L. Rep. 20,550, 20550, 98 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 1040, 1040, 98 Daily
Journal D.A.R. 1475, 1475 (9th Cir.(Ariz.) Feb 11, 1998) (NO. 96-17121,
96-17139) HN: 21 (S.Ct.)
121 Arizona Public Service Co. v. Aspaas, 69 F.3d 1026, 1033+, 95 Cal. Daily Op.
Serv. 8582, 8582+, 95 Daily Journal D.A.R. 14,845, 14845+ (9th Cir.(Ariz.) Nov
07, 1995) (NO. 93-17075, 93-17079) " HN: 20,21 (S.Ct.)
122 Arizona Public Service Co. v. Aspaas, 77 F.3d 1128, 1134+, 96 Daily Journal
D.A.R. 2805, 2805+ (9th Cir.(Ariz.) Nov 07, 1995) (NO. 93-17075, 93-17079) "
HN: 20 (S.Ct.)
123 O'Neill v. U.S., 50 F.3d 677, 686+, 40 ERC 1586, 1586+, 25 Envtl. L. Rep.
20,873, 20873+, 26 UCC Rep.Serv.2d 1, 1+ (9th Cir.(Cal.) Mar 14, 1995) (NO.
93-17154) HN: 18,20,21 (S.Ct.)
124 Viejas Group of Capitan Grande Band of Mission Indians v. Hill, 946 F.2d 899,
899 (9th Cir.(Cal.) Oct 21, 1991) (Table, text in WESTLAW, NO. 86-6701) "
HN: 8,10 (S.Ct.)
125 U.S. Dept. of Labor v. Occupational Safety & Health Review Com'n, 935 F.2d
182, 185, 59 USLW 2760, 2760, 15 O.S.H. Cas. (BNA) 1089, 1089, 1991
O.S.H.D. (CCH) P 29,375, 29375 (9th Cir. Jun 07, 1991) (NO. 90-70082) " HN:
23 (S.Ct.)
126 Audit Services, Inc. v. Martel Const., Inc., 930 F.2d 26, 26 (9th Cir.(Mont.) Mar
29, 1991) (Table, text in WESTLAW, NO. 90-35514) HN: 24 (S.Ct.)
127 Peterson v. U.S. Dept. of Interior, 899 F.2d 799, 807+, 20 Envtl. L. Rep. 20,564,
20564+ (9th Cir.(Cal.) Mar 14, 1990) (NO. 87-2681, 87-2766, 87-2779, 87-2780,
87-2781) HN: 21 (S.Ct.)
128 Duro v. Reina, 821 F.2d 1358, 1361, 56 USLW 2067, 2067 (9th Cir.(Ariz.) Jul
09, 1987) (NO. 85-1718) HN: 8 (S.Ct.)
129 Duro v. Reina, 851 F.2d 1136, 1140+ (9th Cir.(Ariz.) Jul 09, 1987) (NO.
85-1718)
130 Segundo v. City of Rancho Mirage, 813 F.2d 1387, 1393 (9th Cir.(Cal.) Apr 02,
1987) (NO. 85-6592) " HN: 12 (S.Ct.)
131 Quantum Exploration, Inc. v. Clark, 780 F.2d 1457, 1461 (9th Cir.(Mont.) Jan 21,
1986) (NO. 84-4406)
132 White Mountain Apache Tribe v. Williams, 798 F.2d 1205, 1228 (9th Cir.(Ariz.)
Dec 19, 1985) (NO. 81-5348)
133 White Mountain Apache Tribe v. Williams, 810 F.2d 844, 867 (9th Cir.(Ariz.)
Dec 19, 1985) (NO. 81-5348) (in dissent)
134 State of Washington, Dept. of Ecology v. U.S.E.P.A., 752 F.2d 1465, 1470, 53
USLW 2408, 2408, 22 ERC 1810, 1810, 15 Envtl. L. Rep. 20,221, 20221 (9th
Cir. Feb 06, 1985) (NO. 83-7763) HN: 23 (S.Ct.)

135 U.S. v. Anderson, 736 F.2d 1358, 1364+ (9th Cir.(Wash.) Jul 10, 1984) (NO.
82-3597, 82-3625) HN: 8 (S.Ct.)
136 National Farmers Union Ins. Companies v. Crow Tribe of Indians, 736 F.2d
1320, 1324, 18 Ed. Law Rep. 321, 321 (9th Cir.(Mont.) Jul 03, 1984) (NO.
83-3606, 83-3645) HN: 20 (S.Ct.)
137 Blackfeet Tribe of Indians v. State of Mont., 729 F.2d 1192, 1207 (9th
Cir.(Mont.) Apr 03, 1984) (NO. 81-3041) HN: 25 (S.Ct.)
138 Sidney v. Zah, 718 F.2d 1453, 1456+ (9th Cir.(Ariz.) Oct 25, 1983) (NO.
82-5375, 82-5502) HN: 1,8,23 (S.Ct.)
139 Escondido Mut. Water Co. v. F.E.R.C., 692 F.2d 1223, 1232 (9th Cir. Nov 02,
1982) (NO. 79-7625, 80-7012, 80-7110) HN: 2 (S.Ct.)
140 Confederated Tribes of Warm Springs Reservation of Oregon v. Kurtz, 691 F.2d
878, 880, 50 A.F.T.R.2d 82-6279, 82-6279, 82-2 USTC P 16,387, 16387 (9th
Cir.(Or.) Oct 29, 1982) (NO. 81-3503) " HN: 1 (S.Ct.)
141 Native American Distributing v. Seneca-Cayuga Tobacco Co., 546 F.3d 1288,
1295, 2008-2 Trade Cases P 76,395, 76395 (10th Cir.(Okla.) Nov 17, 2008) (NO.
07-5104) HN: 20 (S.Ct.)
142 Shivwits Band of Paiute Indians v. Utah, 428 F.3d 966, 984+, 35 Envtl. L. Rep.
20,230, 20230+ (10th Cir.(Utah) Nov 09, 2005) (NO. 03-4274) " HN: 23 (S.Ct.)
143 Skull Valley Band Of Goshute Indians v. Nielson, 376 F.3d 1223, 1236, Nuclear
Reg. Rep. P 20,642, 20642, 58 ERC 2099, 2099, 198 A.L.R. Fed. 741, 741, 34
Envtl. L. Rep. 20,064, 20064 (10th Cir.(Utah) Aug 04, 2004) (NO. 02-4149) "
HN: 2 (S.Ct.)
144 Rio Grande Silvery Minnow v. Keys, 333 F.3d 1109, 1129, 33 Envtl. L. Rep.
20,224, 20224 (10th Cir.(N.M.) Jun 12, 2003) (NO. 02-2254, 02-2255, 02-2267,
02-2295, 02-2304) " HN: 18,21 (S.Ct.)
145 Southwest Air Ambulance, Inc. v. City of Las Cruces, 268 F.3d 1162, 1177 (10th
Cir.(N.M.) Oct 16, 2001) (NO. 99-2344) " HN: 30,31 (S.Ct.)
146 N.L.R.B. v. Pueblo of San Juan, 280 F.3d 1278, 1283+ (10th Cir.(N.M.) Sep 26,
2000) (NO. 99-2011, 99-2030) HN: 1,5,23 (S.Ct.)
147 Kerr-McGee Corp. v. Farley, 115 F.3d 1498, 1505, 27 Envtl. L. Rep. 21,522,
21522, 97 CJ C.A.R. 1085, 1085, 97 CJ C.A.R. 1376, 1376 (10th Cir.(N.M.) Jun
25, 1997) (NO. 95-2121, 95-2127) " HN: 21 (S.Ct.)
148 Fletcher v. U.S., 116 F.3d 1315, 1324, 97 CJ C.A.R. 923, 923 (10th Cir.(Okla.)
Jun 10, 1997) (NO. 95-5208)
149 Mustang Production Co. v. Harrison, 94 F.3d 1382, 1385, 136 Oil & Gas Rep.
688, 688 (10th Cir.(Okla.) Aug 23, 1996) (NO. 95-6287, 95-6292)
150 Pittsburg & Midway Coal Min. Co. v. Watchman, 52 F.3d 1531, 1538+ (10th
Cir.(N.M.) Apr 19, 1995) (NO. 94-2060) " HN: 2 (S.Ct.)
151 Texaco, Inc. v. Zah, 5 F.3d 1374, 1376 (10th Cir.(N.M.) Sep 29, 1993) (NO.
92-2141)

152 Housing Authority of City of Fort Collins v. U.S., 980 F.2d 624, 631 (10th
Cir.(Colo.) Nov 24, 1992) (NO. 90-1005)
153 Nero v. Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma, 892 F.2d 1457, 1459+ (10th Cir.(Okla.)
Dec 22, 1989) (NO. 86-1271)
154 State of Okl. ex rel. Oklahoma Tax Com'n v. Graham, 846 F.2d 1258, 1260 (10th
Cir.(Okla.) May 18, 1988) (NO. 86-1655)
155 Superior Oil Co. v. U.S., 798 F.2d 1324, 1327+ (10th Cir.(Utah) Aug 13, 1986)
(NO. 85-1330) HN: 24 (S.Ct.)
156 Jicarilla Apache Tribe v. Supron Energy Corp., 728 F.2d 1555, 1562+, 1984-1
Trade Cases P 65,868, 65868+ (10th Cir.(N.M.) Feb 24, 1984) (NO. 81-1680,
81-1860, 81-1871, 81-1872, 81-1873, 81-1874, 81-1939) HN: 4 (S.Ct.)
157 Knight v. Shoshone and Arapahoe Indian Tribes of Wind River Reservation,
Wyo., 670 F.2d 900, 902+ (10th Cir.(Wyo.) Feb 08, 1982) (NO. 80-1810) " HN:
1,5 (S.Ct.)
158 Bainbridge v. Turner, 311 F.3d 1104, 1110, 16 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. C 16, 16
(11th Cir.(Fla.) Nov 08, 2002) (NO. 01-14688, 01-14734) HN: 30 (S.Ct.)
159 Yankee Atomic Elec. Co. v. U.S., 112 F.3d 1569, 1575+, Nuclear Reg. Rep. P
20,581, 20581+, 65 USLW 2739, 2739+, 27 Envtl. L. Rep. 21,260, 21260+, 41
Cont.Cas.Fed. (CCH) P 77,083, 77083+ (Fed.Cir. May 06, 1997) (NO. 96-5021,
96-5025) "
160 Winstar Corp. v. U.S., 64 F.3d 1531, 1545, 64 USLW 2133, 2133, 42
Cont.Cas.Fed. (CCH) P 77,345, 77345 (Fed.Cir. Aug 30, 1995) (NO. 92-5164)
HN: 19 (S.Ct.)
161 Winstar Corp. v. U.S., 994 F.2d 797, 810, 61 USLW 2718, 2718, 62 USLW
2130, 2130 (Fed.Cir. May 25, 1993) (NO. 92-5164) HN: 19,21 (S.Ct.)
162 Association of Accredited Cosmetology Schools v. Alexander, 979 F.2d 859,
867+, 298 U.S.App.D.C. 310, 318+, 78 Ed. Law Rep. 686, 686+ (D.C.Cir. Nov
24, 1992) (NO. 91-5332) HN: 20,21 (S.Ct.)
163 Transohio Sav. Bank v. Director, Office of Thrift Supervision, 967 F.2d 598, 618,
61 USLW 2046, 2046, 296 U.S.App.D.C. 231, 251 (D.C.Cir. Jun 12, 1992) (NO.
91-5246) HN: 20 (S.Ct.)
164 Western Fuels-Utah, Inc. v. Lujan, 895 F.2d 780, 789, 282 U.S.App.D.C. 375,
384 (D.C.Cir. Feb 09, 1990) (NO. 88-5417 TO 88-5419) HN: 18 (S.Ct.)
165 Wichita and Affiliated Tribes of Oklahoma v. Hodel, 788 F.2d 765, 772+, 252
U.S.App.D.C. 140, 147+, 5 Fed.R.Serv.3d 869, 869+ (D.C.Cir. Apr 18, 1986)
(NO. 85-5306, 85-5347)
166 Elliott v. White Mountain Apache Tribal Court, 2006 WL 3533147, *4 (D.Ariz.
Dec 06, 2006) (NO. CIV.05 4240 PCT MHM) HN: 10 (S.Ct.)
167 Duro v. Reina, 1985 WL 260639, *3+ (D.Ariz. Jan 08, 1985) (NO. CIV. 84-2107
PHX.WPC) HN: 20 (S.Ct.)
168 Natural Resources Defense Council v. Kempthorne, 621 F.Supp.2d 954, 986

(E.D.Cal. Apr 27, 2009) (NO. 1:05-CV-01207) HN: 21 (S.Ct.)
169 City of Los Angeles v. County of Kern, 509 F.Supp.2d 865, 884 (C.D.Cal. Aug
10, 2007) (NO. CV 06 5094 GAF VBKX) " HN: 30 (S.Ct.)
170 Mechoopda Indian Tribe of Chico Rancheria, Cal. v. Schwarzenegger, 2004 WL
1103021, *7 (E.D.Cal. Mar 12, 2004) (NO. CIV.S-03-2327WBS/GGH) " HN: 5
(S.Ct.)
171 Santa Ynez Band of Mission Indians v. Torres, 262 F.Supp.2d 1038, 1042+
(C.D.Cal. Aug 29, 2002) (NO. CV 01-01738 SVW AIJX)
172 U.S. v. Westlands Water Dist., 134 F.Supp.2d 1111, 1145+ (E.D.Cal. Mar 13,
2001) (NO. CV-F-89-172 OWW) HN: 19,21 (S.Ct.)
173 Cabazon Band of Mission Indians v. Smith, 34 F.Supp.2d 1195, 1199 (C.D.Cal.
Apr 29, 1998) (NO. CV-97-4687 CAS(JGX))
174 Air Transport Ass'n of America v. City of Los Angeles, 844 F.Supp. 550, 555+
(C.D.Cal. Feb 15, 1994) (NO. CV 93-4539 AWT) " HN: 31 (S.Ct.)
175 Colorado River Indian Tribes v. National Indian Gaming Com'n, 383 F.Supp.2d
123, 146 (D.D.C. Aug 24, 2005) (NO. CIV.A. 04-0010(JDB)) "
176 U.S. v. Philip Morris Inc., 300 F.Supp.2d 61, 69+, RICO Bus.Disp.Guide 10,612,
10612+ (D.D.C. Jan 23, 2004) (NO. CIV.A. 99-2496 (GK)) HN: 20,21 (S.Ct.)
177 Transohio Sav. Bank v. Director, Office of Thrift Supervision, 1991 WL 201178,
*9, 60 USLW 2138, 2138 (D.D.C. Aug 01, 1991) (NO. CIV. A. 90-1678) HN: 21
(S.Ct.)
178 State of Del. v. Cavazos, 723 F.Supp. 234, 242, 56 Ed. Law Rep. 1204, 1204
(D.Del. Sep 01, 1989) (NO. CIV.A. 88-155-JRR) HN: 22 (S.Ct.)
179 Tamiami Partners, Ltd. By and Through Tamiami Development Corp. v. Mic-
cosukee Tribe of Indians of Florida, 898 F.Supp. 1549, 1553 (S.D.Fla. Feb 28,
1994) (NO. 92-0489-CIVHIGHSMITH)
180 Tamiami Partners, Ltd. v. Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of Florida, 803 F.Supp.
401, 408 (S.D.Fla. Aug 19, 1992) (NO. 920489-CIV) HN: 22 (S.Ct.)
181 Century Federal Sav. Bank v. U.S., 745 F.Supp. 1363, 1369+ (N.D.Ill. Jul 24,
1990) (NO. 90 C 3949) " HN: 18,21,22 (S.Ct.)
182 Sac and Fox Tribe of Mississippi in Iowa v. Bear, 258 F.Supp.2d 938, 942, RICO
Bus.Disp.Guide 10,519, 10519 (N.D.Iowa Apr 15, 2003) (NO. C03-28 LRR)
183 Miami Tribe of Oklahoma v. U.S., 927 F.Supp. 1419, 1426 (D.Kan. Apr 10,
1996) (NO. 95-2205-JWL) HN: 21 (S.Ct.)
184 Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians v. U.S., 576 F.Supp.2d 838, 849
(W.D.Mich. Aug 29, 2008) (NO. 2:06-CV-00276) HN: 24 (S.Ct.)
185 U.S. v. Peltier, 344 F.Supp.2d 539, 547 (E.D.Mich. Oct 26, 2004) (NO.
03-20032-BC) HN: 20 (S.Ct.)
186 Coleman v. Duluth Police Dept., 2009 WL 921145, *24 (D.Minn. Mar 31, 2009)
(NO. CIV 07-473(DWF/RLE)) " HN: 11 (S.Ct.)
187 Armstrong v. Mille Lacs County Sheriffs Dept., 112 F.Supp.2d 840, 845

(D.Minn. Aug 02, 2000) (NO. CIV. 98-2658 RLE)
188 Crow Tribe of Indians v. U.S., 657 F.Supp. 573, 594+ (D.Mont. Sep 10, 1985)
(NO. CV-78-110-BLG) HN: 29 (S.Ct.)
189 Ford Motor Credit Co. v. Poitra, 2011 WL 799746, *4+ (D.N.D. Mar 02, 2011)
(NO. 4:10-CV-042) " HN: 5,8,10 (S.Ct.)
190 Amerind Risk Management Corp. v. Malaterre, 585 F.Supp.2d 1121, 1125
(D.N.D. Nov 14, 2008) (NO. 4:07-CV-059)
191 Rio Grande Silvery Minnow v. Keys, 469 F.Supp.2d 973, 993+ (D.N.M. Apr 19,
2002) (NO. CV 99-1320JPRLPACE) HN: 18 (S.Ct.)
192 Kerr-McGee Corp. v. Farley, 915 F.Supp. 273, 277, 26 Envtl. L. Rep. 21,099,
21099 (D.N.M. Jun 08, 1995) (NO. CIV. 95-0438 MV) HN: 20 (S.Ct.)
193 Atkinson Trading Co. v. Navajo Nation, 866 F.Supp. 506, 510+ (D.N.M. Jun 17,
1994) (NO. CIV. 93-1029 JP/DJS) " HN: 1,5 (S.Ct.)
194 Seneca Nation of Indians v. Paterson, 2010 WL 4027796, *7 (W.D.N.Y. Oct 14,
2010) (NO. 10-CV-687A)
195 World Touch Gaming, Inc. v. Massena Management, LLC, 117 F.Supp.2d 271,
276+ (N.D.N.Y. Oct 13, 2000) (NO. 99-CV-2214) " HN: 21 (S.Ct.)
196 AG Organic, Inc. v. John, 892 F.Supp. 466, 475 (W.D.N.Y. Jul 12, 1995) (NO.
94-CV-0586C) "
197 G.B. v. Rogers, 703 F.Supp.2d 724, 733+ (S.D.Ohio Mar 31, 2010) (NO.
1:08-CV-437) " HN: 30,31 (S.Ct.)
198 Vandever v. Osage Nation Enterprise, Inc., 2009 WL 702776, *2 (N.D.Okla. Mar
16, 2009) (NO. 06-CV-380-GKF-TLW)
199 Vandever v. Osage Nation Enterprise, Inc., 2007 WL 6139198, *2+ (N.D.Okla.
Aug 06, 2007) (NO. 06-CV-380-GKF-SAJ)
200 Miner Electric, Inc. v. Muscogee (Creek) Nation, 464 F.Supp.2d 1130, 1141+
(N.D.Okla. Oct 10, 2006) (NO. 05 CV 359 HDC PJC) HN: 10 (S.Ct.)
201 Multimedia Games, Inc. v. WLGC Acquisition Corp., 214 F.Supp.2d 1131,
1136+, 2003 Copr.L.Dec. P 28,558, 28558+ (N.D.Okla. Apr 18, 2001) (NO.
99-CV-0723C) HN: 23 (S.Ct.)
202 Taylor v. U.S., 1990 WL 99162, *4, 71A A.F.T.R.2d 93-3778, 93-3778, 90-2
USTC P 50,398, 50398 (E.D.Pa. Jul 12, 1990) (NO. CIV. A. 89-6626)
203 Farmers Union Oil Co. v. Guggolz, 2008 WL 216321, *4 (D.S.D. Jan 24, 2008)
(NO. CIV 07-1004) " HN: 2 (S.Ct.)
204 U.S. v. Archambault, 174 F.Supp.2d 1009, 1027, 2001 DSD 36, 36 (D.S.D. Oct
18, 2001) (NO. CR 00-30089) HN: 8 (S.Ct.)
205 State of S.D. v. Ducheneaux, 1990 WL 605077, *15+ (D.S.D. Aug 21, 1990)
(NO. CIV. 88-3049) HN: 8 (S.Ct.)
206 Tribal Smokeshop, Inc. v. Alabama-Coushatta Tribes of Texas ex rel. Tribal
Council, 72 F.Supp.2d 717, 720 (E.D.Tex. Aug 31, 1999) (NO. 9:99-CV-26) HN:
20 (S.Ct.)

207 U.S. v. Felter, 546 F.Supp. 1002, 1026 (D.Utah May 20, 1982) (NO. CRIM.
81-00068J) HN: 2 (S.Ct.)
208 Equal Access Educ. v. Merten, 305 F.Supp.2d 585, 609, 186 Ed. Law Rep. 233,
233 (E.D.Va. Feb 24, 2004) (NO. CIV.A. 03-1113-A) " HN: 29 (S.Ct.)
209 Woodstock Associates v. Kemp, 796 F.Supp. 898, 904 (E.D.Va. Jun 23, 1992)
(NO. CIV. A. 91-0957-A) HN: 21 (S.Ct.)
210 Nisqually Indian Tribe v. Gregoire, 649 F.Supp.2d 1203, 1211 (W.D.Wash. Jul
08, 2009) (NO. C08-5069RBL)
211 Chao v. Spokane Tribe of Indians, 2008 WL 4443509, *7 (E.D.Wash. Mar 05,
2008) (NO. CV-07-0354-CI)
212 Alpine Ridge Group v. Kemp, 764 F.Supp. 1393, 1398 (W.D.Wash. Sep 20,
1990) (NO. C89-1654R) " HN: 21,22 (S.Ct.)
213 Holly v. Totus, 655 F.Supp. 548, 555+ (E.D.Wash. Sep 17, 1983) (NO. C-78-02)
214 Oneida Tribe of Indians of Wisconsin v. Village of Hobart, Wis., 542 F.Supp.2d
908, 915 (E.D.Wis. Mar 28, 2008) (NO. 06-C-1302)
215 Martin v. Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife Com'n, 1992 WL 300841, *6+,
61 USLW 2262, 2262+, 123 Lab.Cas. P 35,715, 35715+, 1 Wage & Hour Cas.2d
(BNA) 58, 58+ (W.D.Wis. Oct 07, 1992) (NO. 92-C-409-C) " HN: 1,20 (S.Ct.)
216 Matter of Cabazon Indian Casino, 57 B.R. 398, 400, 13 Bankr.Ct.Dec. 1348,
1348, Unempl.Ins.Rep. (CCH) P 16,739, 16739 (9th Cir.BAP (Cal.) Feb 05,
1986) (NO. CC-85-1006-MVAB) HN: 1,20 (S.Ct.)
217 Stockton East Water Dist. v. U.S., 76 Fed.Cl. 497, 512 (Fed.Cl. May 18, 2007)
(NO. 04 541L) HN: 19,21 (S.Ct.)
218 Klamath Irrigation Dist. v. U.S., 67 Fed.Cl. 504, 537, 61 ERC 1385, 1385
(Fed.Cl. Aug 31, 2005) (NO. 01-591 L) HN: 21 (S.Ct.)
219 Franconia Associates v. U.S., 61 Fed.Cl. 718, 733 (Fed.Cl. Aug 30, 2004) (NO.
97-3812C, 97-381C, 97-3910C) HN: 19,21 (S.Ct.)
220 Local America Bank of Tulsa v. U.S., 52 Fed.Cl. 184, 190, 89 A.F.T.R.2d
2002-1725, 2002-1725 (Fed.Cl. Mar 27, 2002) (NO. 96-584C)
221 Alexander Investment v. U.S., 51 Fed.Cl. 102, 108 (Fed.Cl. Dec 05, 2001) (NO.
96-325C) HN: 18 (S.Ct.)
222 Centex Corp. v. U.S., 49 Fed.Cl. 691, 711 (Fed.Cl. Jul 06, 2001) (NO. 96-494C)
HN: 19 (S.Ct.)
223 General Dynamics Corp. v. U.S., 47 Fed.Cl. 514, 534+ (Fed.Cl. Sep 15, 2000)
(NO. 99-45C, 99-865C) " HN: 19,21 (S.Ct.)
224 Grass Valley Terrace v. U.S., 46 Fed.Cl. 629, 637 (Fed.Cl. Apr 12, 2000) (NO.
98-726 C) HN: 18,21 (S.Ct.)
225 Franconia Associates v. U.S., 44 Fed.Cl. 315, 316 (Fed.Cl. Jul 21, 1999) (NO.
97-381C) HN: 18,21 (S.Ct.)
226 Franconia Associates v. U.S., 43 Fed.Cl. 702, 713+ (Fed.Cl. May 06, 1999) (NO.
97-381C) " HN: 18,21 (S.Ct.)

227 Conoco Inc. v. U.S., 35 Fed.Cl. 309, 332 (Fed.Cl. Apr 01, 1996) (NO. 92-331C)
HN: 18,21 (S.Ct.)
228 Yankee Atomic Elec. Co. v. U.S., 33 Fed.Cl. 580, 584+, 40 Cont.Cas.Fed. (CCH)
P 76,808, 76808+ (Fed.Cl. Jun 22, 1995) (NO. 94-555 C) " HN: 18,21 (S.Ct.)
229 Winstar Corp. v. U.S., 21 Cl.Ct. 112, 115, 59 USLW 2106, 2106 (Cl.Ct. Jul 27,
1990) (NO. 90-8C) HN: 19 (S.Ct.)
230 Native Village of Stevens v. Alaska Management & Planning, 757 P.2d 32, 47
(Alaska May 20, 1988) (NO. 3332, S-1345) (in dissent) HN: 20 (S.Ct.)
231 Atlantic Richfield Co. v. State, 705 P.2d 418, 438+ (Alaska Aug 16, 1985) (NO.
2965, S-52) HN: 19 (S.Ct.)
232 KETCHIKAN INDIAN CORPORATION and Hudson Insurance Company,
Plaintiff, v. Naomi MICHALSEN, Defendant., 2003 WL 25446146, *25446146
(Trial Order) (Alaska Super. Nov 28, 2003) Decision and Order (NO.
3AN-03-07021CI) HN: 1 (S.Ct.)
233 State v. Zaman, 946 P.2d 459, 463, 190 Ariz. 208, 212, 254 Ariz. Adv. Rep. 8, 8
(Ariz. Oct 09, 1997) (NO. CV-96-0328-PR)
234 Smith Plumbing Co., Inc. v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 720 P.2d 499, 511, 149 Ariz.
524, 536 (Ariz. May 28, 1986) (NO. 17691-PR) (in dissent) HN: 8 (S.Ct.)
235 Peabody Coal Co. v. State, 761 P.2d 1094, 1101, 158 Ariz. 190, 197 (Ariz.App.
Div. 1 May 10, 1988) (NO. 1 CA-CIV 9317) " HN: 29 (S.Ct.)
236 Barclays Bank Internat., Ltd. v. Franchise Tax Bd., 8 Cal.Rptr.2d 31, 41, 829
P.2d 279, 289, 2 Cal.4th 708, 725, 60 USLW 2725, 2725 (Cal. May 11, 1992)
(NO. S019064) HN: 31 (S.Ct.)
237 Boisclair v. Superior Court, 276 Cal.Rptr. 62, 73, 801 P.2d 305, 316, 51 Cal.3d
1140, 1158 (Cal. Dec 17, 1990) (NO. S008470) HN: 2 (S.Ct.)
238 People v. Wilmshurst, 53 Cal.Rptr.3d 136, 143, 146 Cal.App.4th 621, 631, 07
Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 239, 239, 2007 Daily Journal D.A.R. 327, 327 (Cal.App. 3
Dist. Jan 08, 2007) (NO. C050103) HN: 31 (S.Ct.)
239 California Ass'n of Professional Scientists v. Schwarzenegger, 40 Cal.Rptr.3d
354, 363, 137 Cal.App.4th 371, 384, 06 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 1975, 1975, 2006
Daily Journal D.A.R. 2727, 2727 (Cal.App. 3 Dist. Mar 06, 2006) (NO.
C049928) " HN: 19,21 (S.Ct.)
240 Colgate-Palmolive Co. v. Franchise Tax Bd., 13 Cal.Rptr.2d 761, 767+, 10
Cal.App.4th 1768, 1778+ (Cal.App. 3 Dist. Nov 20, 1992) (NO. CIV. C007044)
HN: 31 (S.Ct.)
241 Barclays Bank Internat. Ltd. v. Franchise Tax Bd., 14 Cal.Rptr.2d 537, 541, 10
Cal.App.4th 1742, 1751, 61 USLW 2343, 2343 (Cal.App. 3 Dist. Nov 20, 1992)
(NO. C003388) HN: 29 (S.Ct.)
242 Colgate Palmolive Co., Inc. v. Franchise Tax Bd., 284 Cal.Rptr. 780, 786, 233
Cal.App.3d 855, 855, 4 Cal.App.4th 1681, 1691, 60 USLW 2151, 2151 (Cal.App.
3 Dist. Aug 20, 1991) (NO. CIV. C007044)

243 Barclays Bank Intern. Ltd. v. Franchise Tax Bd., 275 Cal.Rptr. 626, 629, 232
Cal.App.3d 1187, 1197, 3 Cal.App.4th 1034, 1044, 59 USLW 2384, 2384
(Cal.App. 3 Dist. Nov 30, 1990) (NO. C003388) HN: 31 (S.Ct.)
244 Rush Creek Solutions, Inc. v. Ute Mountain Ute Tribe, 107 P.3d 402, 407+
(Colo.App. Aug 12, 2004) (NO. 03CA0517) HN: 22 (S.Ct.)
245 State v. Ader, 1992 WL 119194, *10, 6 Conn. L. Rptr. 793, 793 (Conn.Super.
May 15, 1992) (NO. CR6-348515) " HN: 30 (S.Ct.)
246 State v. Henderson, 756 P.2d 1057, 1060, 114 Idaho 293, 296 (Idaho Jun 15,
1988) (NO. 16852)
247 L.E. Services, Inc. v. State Lottery Com'n of Indiana, 646 N.E.2d 334, 346
(Ind.App. 4 Dist. Jan 31, 1995) (NO. 49A04-9406-CV-226) HN: 31 (S.Ct.)
248 Webb v. Paragon Casino, 872 So.2d 641, 646, 2003-1700 (La.App. 3 Cir.
5/12/04), 5 (La.App. 3 Cir. May 12, 2004) (NO. 03-1700) " HN: 12 (S.Ct.)
249 Ortego v. Tunica Biloxi Indians of La., 865 So.2d 985, 993+, 2003-1001
(La.App. 3 Cir. 2/4/04), 11+ (La.App. 3 Cir. Feb 04, 2004) (NO. 03-1001) " HN:
12 (S.Ct.)
250 SC Testing Technology, Inc. v. Department of Environmental Protection, 688
A.2d 421, 426 (Me. Dec 30, 1996) (NO. KEN-96-179) (in dissent) HN: 19,21
(S.Ct.)
251 Garcia v. Gutierrez, 217 P.3d 591, 605, 147 N.M. 105, 105, 2009-NMSC-044,
044 (N.M. Aug 26, 2009) (NO. 31,263) " HN: 20 (S.Ct.)
252 Hoover v. Kiowa Tribe of Oklahoma, 986 P.2d 516, 522, 41 UCC Rep.Serv.2d
326, 326, 1999 OK 61, 61 (Okla. Jun 29, 1999) (NO. 87,139) (in dissent) HN: 1
(S.Ct.)
253 Aircraft Equipment Co. v. Kiowa Tribe of Oklahoma, 939 P.2d 1143, 1148, 1997
OK 59, 59, 1997 OK 62, 62 (Okla. May 06, 1997) (NO. 86,184)
254 Warm Springs Forest Products Industries, a div. of Confederated Tribes of Warm
Springs Reservation of Oregon v. Employee Benefits Ins. Co., 703 P.2d 1008,
1012+, 74 Or.App. 422, 429+ (Or.App. Jul 17, 1985) (NO. A8010-05866, CA
A24017)
255 Calvello v. Yankton Sioux Tribe, 584 N.W.2d 108, 112, 1998 S.D. 107, 107
(S.D. Sep 09, 1998) (NO. 20209-A-JKK)
256 Red Fox v. Hettich, 494 N.W.2d 638, 650 (S.D. Jan 13, 1993) (NO. 17509) HN:
20 (S.Ct.)
257 Mexican v. Circle Bear, 370 N.W.2d 737, 741 (S.D. Jul 03, 1985) (NO. 14917)
HN: 20 (S.Ct.)
258 State v. Schmuck, 850 P.2d 1332, 1341, 121 Wash.2d 373, 390 (Wash. May 06,
1993) (NO. 58987-9) HN: 2 (S.Ct.)
259 Tasker v. Department of Health, 2007 WL 1893689, *9, 139 Wash.App. 1041,
1041 (Wash.App. Div. 2 Jul 03, 2007) (NO. 35144-7-II) HN: 7,8 (S.Ct.)
260 Willman v. Washington Utilities and Transp. Com'n, 93 P.3d 909, 915, 122

Wash.App. 194, 207 (Wash.App. Div. 3 Jul 01, 2004) (NO. 22411-2-III) HN: 1,2
(S.Ct.)
261 Northwest Airlines, Inc. v. Wisconsin Dept. of Revenue, 2005 WL 487882, *3
(Wis.App. Mar 03, 2005) (NO. 04-0319) " HN: 31 (S.Ct.)
262 American Trucking Associations, Inc. v. State, 556 N.W.2d 761, 764, 205 Wis.2d
494, 499, Fed. Carr. Cas. P 84,035, 84035 (Wis.App. Oct 17, 1996) (NO.
95-1714) HN: 31 (S.Ct.)
263 Mustang Fuel Corp. v. Cheyenne-Arapaho Tax Com'n, 1994 WL 1047927, *3+, 4
Okla. Trib. 1, 14+ (Cheyenne-Arapaho Jan 03, 1994) (NO. CNA-SC-91-02)
264 Monestersky v. Hopi Tribe, 4 Am. Tribal Law 424, 427+ (Hopi C.A. Jun 27,
2002) (NO. 00CV000159, 01AP000015) HN: 8,10 (S.Ct.)
265 Vintage Petroleum, Inc. v. Tax Com'n of the Kickapoo Tribe of Oklahoma, 1997
WL 33477674, *2+, 6 Okla. Trib. 327, 327+ (Kickapoo D.Ct. Apr 23, 1997)
(NO. CIV-94-04) HN: 8 (S.Ct.)
266 Thinn v. Navajo Generating Station, 7 Am. Tribal Law 558, 562 (Navajo Oct 19,
2007) (NO. SC-CV-25-06, SC-CV-26-06)
267 Office of Navajo Labor Relations, ex rel. Bailon v. Central Consolidated School
Dist. 22, 5 Am. Tribal Law 412, 414, 8 Nav. R. 501, 501 (Navajo Jun 23, 2004)
(NO. SC-CV-37-00)
268 Blaze Const., Inc. v. Navajo Tax Com'n, 2 Am. Tribal Law 487, 491+, 7 Nav. R.
435, 435+ (Navajo Dec 20, 1999) (NO. SC-CV-13-97) " HN: 1 (S.Ct.)
269 Healy v. Mashantucket Pequot Gaming Enterprise, 1999 WL 34828485, *4, 2
Mash.App. 28, 33, 1 MPR 63, 65 (Mash. Pequot Ct. App. Jan 07, 1999) (NO.
CV-AA-1997-0183, MPCA-EA-98-1031) HN: 20 (S.Ct.)
Mentioned
270 U.S. v. Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma, 107 S.Ct. 1487, 1491, 480 U.S. 700, 707,
94 L.Ed.2d 704, 704, 55 USLW 4403, 4403 (U.S.Okla. Mar 31, 1987) (NO.
85-1940) HN: 21 (S.Ct.)
271 Ninigret Development Corp. v. Narragansett Indian Wetuomuck Housing Author-
ity, 207 F.3d 21, 29, 30 Envtl. L. Rep. 20,481, 20481 (1st Cir.(R.I.) Mar 22,
2000) (NO. 99-1828) HN: 20 (S.Ct.)
272 New England Legal Foundation v. Massachusetts Port Authority, 883 F.2d 157,
174 (1st Cir.(Mass.) Aug 17, 1989) (NO. 88-1971, 88-1972, 88-1973, 88-2227)
273 Poodry v. Tonawanda Band of Seneca Indians, 85 F.3d 874, 889 (2nd Cir.(N.Y.)
May 16, 1996) (NO. 95-7490, 95-7492, 95-7498, 95-7502, 95-7504)
274 Oneida Indian Nation of New York State v. Oneida County, 719 F.2d 525, 545
(2nd Cir.(N.Y.) Sep 29, 1983) (NO. 545, 546, 643, 82-7436, 82-7486, 82-7526)
(in dissent) HN: 20 (S.Ct.)
275 U.S. v. Bailey, 115 F.3d 1222, 1237 (5th Cir.(Tex.) Jun 12, 1997) (NO.
95-50721) (in dissent)

276 Lower Brule Sioux Tribe v. State of S.D., 104 F.3d 1017, 1026, 27 Envtl. L. Rep.
20,700, 20700 (8th Cir.(S.D.) Jan 09, 1997) (NO. 96-1692) HN: 21 (S.Ct.)
277 Bruce H. Lien Co. v. Three Affiliated Tribes, 93 F.3d 1412, 1419 (8th Cir.(N.D.)
Aug 28, 1996) (NO. 95-3916, 96-1013) HN: 23 (S.Ct.)
278 Duncan Energy Co. v. Three Affiliated Tribes of Ft. Berthold Reservation, 27
F.3d 1294, 1299 (8th Cir.(N.D.) Jun 08, 1994) (NO. 93-3622)
279 Red Lake Band of Chippewa Indians v. Barlow, 846 F.2d 474, 476 (8th
Cir.(Minn.) May 02, 1988) (NO. 85-5272, 87-5188)
280 American Indian Agr. Credit Consortium, Inc. v. Standing Rock Sioux Tribe, 780
F.2d 1374, 1379 (8th Cir.(N.D.) Dec 31, 1985) (NO. 85-5209)
281 Madera Irr. Dist. v. Hancock, 985 F.2d 1397, 1401+, 23 Envtl. L. Rep. 20,579,
20579+ (9th Cir.(Cal.) Feb 02, 1993) (NO. 91-16013) HN: 19,20,21 (S.Ct.)
282 U.S. v. Plainbull, 957 F.2d 724, 727 (9th Cir.(Mont.) Feb 26, 1992) (NO.
91-35224) HN: 23 (S.Ct.)
283 Pan American Co. v. Sycuan Band of Mission Indians, 884 F.2d 416, 419 (9th
Cir.(Cal.) Aug 28, 1989) (NO. 87-6738)
284 Big Spring v. U.S. Bureau of Indian Affairs, 767 F.2d 614, 617 (9th Cir.(Mont.)
Jul 31, 1985) (NO. 84-4141, 84-4170)
285 Kennerly v. U.S., 721 F.2d 1252, 1259 (9th Cir.(Mont.) Dec 15, 1983) (NO.
82-3196)
286 Ashcroft v. U.S. Dept. of Interior, 679 F.2d 196, 199 (9th Cir.(Ariz.) Jun 09,
1982) (NO. 81-5381)
287 Dobbs v. Anthem Blue Cross and Blue Shield, 600 F.3d 1275, 1284, 48 Employ-
ee Benefits Cas. 2473, 2473 (10th Cir.(Colo.) Mar 31, 2010) (NO. 07-1398,
07-1402)
288 Trapper Min. Inc. v. Lujan, 923 F.2d 774, 778 (10th Cir.(Colo.) Jan 15, 1991)
(NO. 89-1372, 90-8025) HN: 19,21 (S.Ct.)
289 Seneca-Cayuga Tribe of Oklahoma v. State of Okl. ex rel. Thompson, 874 F.2d
709, 715 (10th Cir.(Okla.) May 03, 1989) (NO. 86-1885) HN: 22 (S.Ct.)
290 Wilder v. Prokop, 846 F.2d 613, 618 (10th Cir.(Colo.) May 10, 1988) (NO.
84-2540)
291 Northern Arapahoe Tribe v. Hodel, 808 F.2d 741, 749, 6 Fed.R.Serv.3d 1248,
1248, 17 Envtl. L. Rep. 20,682, 20682 (10th Cir.(Wyo.) Jan 09, 1987) (NO.
85-1007)
292 Dille v. Council of Energy Resource Tribes, 801 F.2d 373, 375, 41 Fair Em-
pl.Prac.Cas. (BNA) 1345, 1345, 41 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 36,663, 36663 (10th
Cir.(Colo.) Sep 19, 1986) (NO. 85-1939) HN: 2 (S.Ct.)
293 Jicarilla Apache Tribe v. Andrus, 687 F.2d 1324, 1344, 13 Envtl. L. Rep. 20,445,
20445 (10th Cir.(N.M.) Aug 20, 1982) (NO. 80-1481, 80-1586, 80-1632,
80-1633, 80-1634, 80-1635, 80-1636 80-1639, 80-1637 80-1640, 80-1638
80-1685) HN: 34 (S.Ct.)

294 Lujan v. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, 673 F.2d 1165, 1166 (10th Cir.(N.M.) Mar 29,
1982) (NO. 80-1291)
295 Ramey Const. Co., Inc. v. Apache Tribe of Mescalero Reservation, 673 F.2d 315,
319 (10th Cir.(N.M.) Mar 22, 1982) (NO. 78-1376, 81-1129) HN: 20 (S.Ct.)
296 Confederated Tribes of Colville Reservation v. U.S., 964 F.2d 1102, 1119
(Fed.Cir. Apr 29, 1992) (NO. 90-5099) HN: 21 (S.Ct.)
297 In re Department of Energy Stripper Well Exemption Litigation, 945 F.2d 1575,
1582 (Em.App. Aug 26, 1991) (NO. 10-85) HN: 19,21 (S.Ct.)
298 Ford Motor Co. v. Todecheene, 221 F.Supp.2d 1070, 1075 (D.Ariz. Sep 19,
2002) (NO. CV-02-1100-PCT-PGR)
299 Espil v. Sells, 847 F.Supp. 752, 755 (D.Ariz. Mar 30, 1994) (NO. CV 92-1795
PCT PGR)
300 U.S. v. White Mountain Apache Tribe, 604 F.Supp. 464, 466 (D.Ariz. Feb 21,
1985) (NO. CIV-81-1606-PCT-CAM) HN: 8 (S.Ct.)
301 Singleton Sheet Metal Works, Inc. v. City of Pueblo, 727 F.Supp. 579, 582
(D.Colo. Dec 20, 1989) (NO. CIV. A. 88-B-1903)
302 Amfac Resorts, L.L.C. v. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, 142 F.Supp.2d 54, 72
(D.D.C. May 23, 2001) (NO. CIV.A. 00-2838 RCL, CIV.A. 00-2885 RCL,
CIV.A. 00-2937 RCL, CIV.A. 00-3085 RCL) HN: 21 (S.Ct.)
303 Pueblo of Santa Ana v. Hodel, 663 F.Supp. 1300, 1315 (D.D.C. May 01, 1987)
(NO. CIV. A. 85-2866)
304 Adamson v. Radosevic, 685 F.Supp. 814, 817 (D.Kan. Mar 21, 1988) (NO. CIV.
A. 87-2105) HN: 31 (S.Ct.)
305 Smith v. I.R.S., 1991 WL 236657, *1 (E.D.La. Oct 29, 1991) (NO. CIV. A.
90-4818)
306 Brighton Village Nominee Trust v. Malyshev, 2004 WL 594974, *5, 27 NDLR P
302, 302 (D.Mass. Mar 23, 2004) (NO. CIV.A. 00-CV-12311-G) HN: 18 (S.Ct.)
307 Little Horn State Bank v. Crow Tribal Court, 690 F.Supp. 919, 923 (D.Mont. Jul
21, 1988) (NO. CV 88-155-BLG-JFB)
308 Mescalero Apache Tribe v. Rhoades, 755 F.Supp. 1484, 1493, 55 Empl. Prac.
Dec. P 40,589, 40589 (D.N.M. Dec 07, 1990) (NO. CIV. 89-0401 JP) HN: 2
(S.Ct.)
309 Swedenburg v. Kelly, 232 F.Supp.2d 135, 151 (S.D.N.Y. Nov 12, 2002) (NO. 00
CIV. 0778 (RMB)) HN: 31 (S.Ct.)
310 U.S. v. Archambault, 206 F.Supp.2d 1010, 1019 (D.S.D. May 24, 2002) (NO. CR
00-30089)
311 Lisbon Square v. U.S., 856 F.Supp. 482, 490 (E.D.Wis. May 19, 1994) (NO.
91-C-281) HN: 18 (S.Ct.)
312 JDS Realty Corp. v. Government of Virgin Islands, 593 F.Supp. 199, 204
(D.Virgin Islands Aug 24, 1984) (NO. CIV. 81-183) HN: 23 (S.Ct.)
313 Charter Federal Savings Bank v. U.S., 54 Fed.Cl. 120, 125 (Fed.Cl. Oct 09, 2002)

(NO. 95-513C) HN: 21 (S.Ct.)
314 Commonwealth Edison Co. v. U.S., 46 Fed.Cl. 29, 37 (Fed.Cl. Feb 03, 2000)
(NO. 97-269C)
315 State v. Native Village of Tanana, 2011 WL 745848, *15 (Alaska Mar 04, 2011)
(NO. S-13332) HN: 20 (S.Ct.)
316 In re C.R.H., 29 P.3d 849, 851 (Alaska Aug 31, 2001) (NO. S-9677)
317 Tracy v. Superior Court of Maricopa County, 810 P.2d 1030, 1045, 168 Ariz. 23,
38 (Ariz. Apr 23, 1991) (NO. CV-90-0407-SA)
318 Department of Revenue v. Moki Mac River Expeditions, Inc., 773 P.2d 474, 479,
160 Ariz. 369, 373 (Ariz.App. Div. 1 Jan 24, 1989) (NO. 1 CA-CIV 9878) HN:
29 (S.Ct.)
319 People ex rel. State Air Resources Bd. v. Wilmshurst, 81 Cal.Rptr.2d 221, 226,
68 Cal.App.4th 1332, 1345, 99 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 139, 139, 99 Daily Journal
D.A.R. 193, 193 (Cal.App. 3 Dist. Jan 05, 1999) (NO. C022579) HN: 32 (S.Ct.)
320 Drumm v. Brown, 716 A.2d 50, 62, 245 Conn. 657, 680 (Conn. Jul 28, 1998)
(NO. 15809)
321 Seminole Tribe of Florida v. Houghtaling, 589 So.2d 1030, 1032, 16 Fla. L.
Weekly D3017, D3017 (Fla.App. 2 Dist. Dec 04, 1991) (NO. 91-01508) HN: 14
(S.Ct.)
322 Gavle v. Little Six, Inc., 555 N.W.2d 284, 297 (Minn. Oct 31, 1996) (NO.
C0-95-133) HN: 20 (S.Ct.)
323 Danka Funding Co., LLC v. Sky City Casino, 747 A.2d 837, 844, 329 N.J.Super.
357, 369 (N.J.Super.L. Sep 21, 1999) (NO. BER-L-2860-99)
324 Padilla v. Pueblo of Acoma, 754 P.2d 845, 848+, 107 N.M. 174, 177+, 56 USLW
2671, 2671+ (N.M. May 09, 1988) (NO. 16,835) HN: 24 (S.Ct.)
325 Port of Oswego Authority v. Grannis, 897 N.Y.S.2d 736, 739, 70 A.D.3d 1101,
1104, 2010 N.Y. Slip Op. 00766, 00766 (N.Y.A.D. 3 Dept. Feb 04, 2010) (NO.
507661)
326 One Thousand Four Hundred Sixty Three Dollars v. Muscogee (Creek) Nation,
2005 WL 6218811, *1, 9 Okla. Trib. 83, 83 (Muscogee (Creek) Apr 29, 2005)
(NO. SC 2005-01)
Administrative Decisions (U.S.A.)
Department of the Interior Board of Indian Appeals Decisions

327 ATCHISON, TOPEKA AND SANTA FE RAILWAY CO. v. DEPUTY AREA
DIRECTOR, ALBUQUERQUE AREA OFFICE, BUREAU OF INDIAN AF-
FAIRS, 14 Interior Board of Indian Appeals 46+ (1986) HN: 24,33,34
(S.Ct.)
F.C.C. Decisions

328 IN THE MATTER OF POLICIES TO PROMOTE RURAL RADIO SERVICE
AND TO STREAMLINE ALLOTMENT AND ASSIGNMENT PROCEDURES,
2010 WL 373446, *29, 25 F.C.C.R. 1583, 25 FCC Rcd. 1583, 49 Communica-
tions Reg. (P&F) 561 (F.C.C. Feb 03, 2010) First Report and Order and Fur-
ther Notice of Proposed Rule Making (NO. FCC10-24, MB09-52, RM-11528)
HN: 2 (S.Ct.)
329 IN THE MATTER OF POLICIES TO PROMOTE RURAL RADIO SERVICE
AND TO STREAMLINE ALLOTMENT AND ASSIGNMENT PROCEDURES,
2009 WL 1046092, *20, 24 F.C.C.R. 5239, 24 FCC Rcd. 5239 (F.C.C. Apr 20,
2009) Notice of Proposed Rule Making (NO. FCC09-30, MB09-52, RM-11528)
Interior Board of Contract Appeals Decisions

330 Appeal of Superior Timber Co., Inc., 1996 WL 719922 (I.B.C.A.), *37, IBCA
No. 3459, 3459, 97-1 BCA P 28736, 28736 (I.B.C.A. Dec 12, 1996) (NO.
OR110-TS91-24) HN: 19,21 (S.Ct.)
IRS Field Service Advice

331 IRS FSA 200229008, 2002 WL 1589790 (IRS FSA Jul 19, 2002) HN: 8
(S.Ct.)
IRS Private Letter Rulings

332 PLR 200207013, 2002 WL 228623 (IRS PLR Feb 15, 2002)
333 PLR 200148038, 2001 WL 1521701 (IRS PLR Nov 30, 2001)
334 PLR 200050015, 2000 WL 1840170 (IRS PLR Dec 15, 2000)
335 PLR 200029039, 2000 WL 33116254 (IRS PLR Jul 21, 2000)
336 PLR 9644034, 1996 WL 632166 (IRS PLR Nov 01, 1996)
337 PLR 9623020, 1996 WL 305100 (IRS PLR Jun 07, 1996)
338 PLR 8923031, 1989 WL 597579 (IRS PLR Jun 09, 1989) HN: 1 (S.Ct.)
339 PLR 8506027, 1984 WL 269687 (IRS PLR Nov 09, 1984) HN: 2 (S.Ct.)
340 PLR 8443093, 1984 WL 267970 (IRS PLR Jul 26, 1984) HN: 6,34 (S.Ct.)
NLRB Decisions
341 In re San Manuel Indian Bingo and Casino, 341 NLRB 1055, 1061+, 341 NLRB
No. 138, 138+, 2004 WL 1283584, *11+, 174 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 1489, 1489+
(N.L.R.B. May 28, 2004) (NO. CASES 31-CA-23673 AN) " HN:
1,23,24 (S.Ct.)
342 Sac and Fox Industries, Ltd., Employer and Patricia Maxson, Petitioner and
United Garment Workers of America, Local 427, AFL-CIO, Union, 307 NLRB
241, 245, 307 NLRB No. 34, 34, 1992 WL 90688, *6, 140 L.R.R.M. (BNA)
1054, 1054 (N.L.R.B. Apr 24, 1992) (NO. 17-RD-1192)

Office of the Chief Administrative Hearing Officer Decisions
343 In re Investigation of Miccosukee Resort and Convention Center, 2004 WL
3312070, *6+, 9 OCAHO 1114, 1114+ (O.C.A.H.O. Dec 10, 2004) (NO.
05S00003)
OSAHRC Decisions
344 SECRETARY OF LABOR, COMPLAINANT v. MASHANTUCKET SAND &
GRAVEL, RESPONDENT, 1995 WL 561587, *4, 17 O.S.H. Cas. (BNA) 1391,
1391, 1995-1997 O.S.H.D. (CCH) P 30,895, 30895 (O.S.H.R.C. Sep 20, 1995)
(NO. 93-1985) HN: 16 (S.Ct.)
345 SECRETARY OF LABOR, COMPLAINANT v. COEUR D'ALENE TRIBAL
FARM, RESPONDENT, 1983 WL 23795, *5+, 11 O.S.H. Cas. (BNA) 1705,
1705+, 1983-1984 O.S.H.D. (CCH) P 26,732, 26732+ (O.S.H.R.C. Nov 16,
1983) (NO. 78-6081, 78-6082) " HN: 10,23 (S.Ct.)
U.S. Attorney General Opinions

346 APPLICABILITY OF SECTION 504 OF THE REHABILITATION ACT TO
TRIBALLY CONTROLLED SCHOOLS, 2004 WL 5567281 (O.L.C.), *8+
(2004)
Administrative Guidelines and Bulletins (U.S.A.)
FDA Enforcement Report

347 1997 WL 33793753 (F.D.A.), *17 (1997)
State Administrative Materials (U.S.A.)

348 Hon. Emil Notti, 1986 WL 81094 (Alaska A.G.), *5 (1986) HN: 19 (S.Ct.)
349 D.D. Dieckmeyer, 1985 WL 70062 (Alaska A.G.), *5 (1985)
350 PEABODY COAL COMPANY, Appellant, v. ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF
REVENUE, Appellee., 1983 WL 15311 (Ariz.Bd.Tax.App.), *5+ (1983)
351 Cassius C. Spears v. Lakes Spears d/b/a Lake Spears Masonry, 1997 WL 693574
(Conn.Work.Comp.Com.), *7 (1997) HN: 1 (S.Ct.)
352 Proceeding on Motion of Com'n as to Joint Petition of New York Telephone Co.,
1997 WL 314725, *6 (N.Y.P.S.C. May 30, 1997) (NO. 96-C-0599, 96-C-0603,
96-C-0821, 97-8)
353 41 Mont. Op. Atty. Gen. 322, David Lewis (1986)
354 1990 Nev. Op. Atty. Gen. 32, Ms. Myla C. Florence (1990) HN: 23 (S.Ct.)
355 1999 N.D. Op. Atty. Gen. No. 12, Carol Olson (1999) HN: 8,10,16 (S.Ct.)
356 29 Okl. Op. Atty. Gen. 13, Gordon L. Hare, (1999) HN: 34 (S.Ct.)

357 46 Or. Op. Atty. Gen. 468, State Land Board (1992) HN: 18 (S.Ct.)
358 Or. Op. Atty. Gen. OP-5699, Ed Zajonc (1984)
359 43 Or. Op. Atty. Gen. 169, The Honorable Bob Harper (1983)
360 Tenn. Op. Atty. Gen. No. 99-207, The Honorable Jerry W. Cooper (1999)
HN: 18,21 (S.Ct.)
361 Mr. Thomas D. Wiensch, 2008 WL 4452630 (Wis.A.G.), *1 (2008) HN: 7
(S.Ct.)
362 Kenneth J. Bukowski, 1987 WL 341128 (Wis.A.G.), *3+ (1987) HN: 1,8
(S.Ct.)
363 The Honorable Anthony S. Earl, 1986 WL 288981 (Wis.A.G.), *8 (1986)
HN: 1,8 (S.Ct.)
364 Mr. James B. Mohr, 1982 WL 188357 (Wis.A.G.), *1+ (1982) HN: 1 (S.Ct.)
Other Administrative Materials (U.S.A.)

365 OCC - NEWS RELEASES - OCC-NEWS RELEASES 2002 - OCC-NR-NEWS
RELEASES 9/2002 - OCC-NR 2002-74 OCC UPDATES GUIDE TO TRIBAL
OWNERSHIP OF A NATIONAL BANK, 2009 WL 2813205 (C.C.H.), *16
(2011)
366 OCC PUBLICATIONS - OCC HANDBOOKS-MANUALS-EXAMINATION
PROCEDURES-GUIDES - OCC-GUIDE TO MORTGAGE LENDING IN INDI-
AN COUNTRY, JULY 1997 - PART I-OPERATING IN INDIAN COUNTRY,
2009 WL 2792230 (C.C.H.), *6 (2010)
367 Rights to Coalbed Methane under an Oil & Gas Lease for Lands in the Jicarilla
Apache Reservation, 98 Decisions of the Department of the Interior 59 (1990)
HN: 36 (S.Ct.)
368 ATCHISON, TOPEKA & SANTA FE RAILWAY CO. v. DEPUTY AREA DIR-
ECTOR, ALBUQUERQUE AREA OFFICE, BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS,
93 Decisions of the Department of the Interior 79+ (1986) HN: 24,33
(S.Ct.)
369 OVERVIEW OF FEDERAL TAX PROVISIONS RELATING TO NATIVE
AMERICAN TRIBES AND THEIR MEMBERS SCHEDULED FOR A PUBLIC
HEARING BEFORE THE SENATE COMMITTEE ON FINANCE ON JULY
22, 2008, Federal Taxation - Joint Committee on Taxation (JCX) Print 61-08
(2008)
Registers (U.S.A.)
370 Navajo Nation; Underground Injection Control (UIC) Program; Primacy Approv-
al, 73 Federal Register 65556 (Nov 04, 2008)
371 State Program Requirements; Approval of Application by Maine To Administer
the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Program; Maine,
68 Federal Register 65052 (Nov 18, 2003)

372 Final Guidance on Industry-Supported Scientific and Educational Activities, 62
Federal Register 64074 (Dec 03, 1997)
373 Native American Programs, 61 Federal Register 42817 (Aug 19, 1996) HN:
24 (S.Ct.)
374 Revision of Coal Product Valuation Regulations, 55 Federal Register 5024 (Feb
13, 1990) HN: 4,36 (S.Ct.)
375 Concession Contracts, 65 Federal Register 20630 (Apr 17, 2000) HN: 18
(S.Ct.)
376 Native American Programs, 60 Federal Register 19994 (Apr 21, 1995) HN:
24 (S.Ct.)
Citing Applications
377 US PAT APP 20100318388 NATIVE AMERICAN INDIAN COMPLIANT FIN-
ANCIAL SERVICES METHODOLOGYPublished Application Date: Dec 16,
2010
Secondary Sources (U.S.A.)

378 Application of Indian Reorganization Act, 30 A.L.R. Fed. 2d 1 (2008) HN:
3,4,17,24 (S.Ct.)
379 Validity and Construction of Indian Reorganization Act, 28 A.L.R. Fed. 2d 563
(2008) HN: 1,2,6,8,22 (S.Ct.)
380 Application of Indian Mineral Leasing Act (IMLA) and Its Implementing Regula-
tions, 196 A.L.R. Fed. 619 (2004) HN: 4,23,24,25,36 (S.Ct.)
381 TRIBAL LITIGATION AGAINST TOBACCO COMPANIES, 1999 WL
33733238 (ANCLE), *11 (1999) HN: 8,10 (S.Ct.)
382 Architect and Engineer Liability: Claims Against Design Professionals s 16.02,
SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY (2011)
383 Banking Law and Regulation TABLE OF CASES (2011)
384 Banking Law and Regulation s 11.3.4.3, Supervision of Troubled and Failing In-
stitutions After Winstar (2011)
385 BNA Tax Management State Portfolios No. 1810 s 06, 1810.06. OTHER FED-
ERAL STATUTES
386 Business and Commercial Litigation in Federal Courts s 73:53, Commerce clause
(2011) HN: 31 (S.Ct.)
387 Callmann on Unfair Compet., TMs, & Monopolies APP 40 s 40:54, s 40:54. Utah
Trademark Protection Act (2007 General Session, State Of Utah, eff. April 30,
2007) (S.B. 236; Chapter 365) (no longer in force) (2011)
388 Commercial Arbitration s 40:107, Business activities on reservation-Tribal taxa-
tion (2010) HN: 2 (S.Ct.)
389 Commercial Arbitration s 40:113, Business activities on reservation-Tribal taxa-
tion-Oil and gas severance tax (2010) HN: 24 (S.Ct.)

390 Commercial Arbitration s 40:13, Tribal governance (2010)
391 Commercial Arbitration s 40:5, Reservation boundaries and Indian Country-Tri-
bal power of exclusion (2010) HN: 11 (S.Ct.)
392 Commercial Arbitration s 40:84, Sovereign immunity-Waiver of sovereign im-
munity-Implied waiver of immunity (2010)
393 Cyclopedia of Federal Procedure s 2.36.50, Indian tribes (2011)
394 Federal Circuit Patent Case Digests s 8:41, Hughes Communications Galaxy, Inc.
v. U.S. (2010) HN: 19,21 (S.Ct.)
395 Federal Civil Rights Acts s 6:3, The unique status of the indian tribes-The sover-
eignty of the tribes (2011)
396 Government Contract Costs & Pricing s 3:2, Statutes (2011) HN: 21 (S.Ct.)
397 Hartman and Trost, Federal Limitations on State and Local Tax s 14:8, The su-
premacy clause: Preemption of state tax action by federal action (2010)
398 Hartman and Trost, Federal Limitations on State and Local Tax s 6:10, Federal
tax immunity and indians (2010) HN: 17,24,36 (S.Ct.)
399 Modern Constitutional Law s 36:11, State and tribe taxation (2011)
400 RIA All States Tax Guide 985.58, ATKINSON TRADING CO., INC. v. SHIR-
LEY ET AL. (2001)
401 RIA All States Tax Guide 985.67, WAGNON, SECRETARY, KANSAS DE-
PARTMENT OF REVENUE v. PRAIRIE BAND POTAWATOMI NATION
(2005)
402 Scoles, Hay, Borchers and Symeonides Hornbook on Conflict of Laws 11.VI,
VI. Native American and Indian Country Limitations
403 Scoles, Hay, Borchers and Symeonides Hornbook on Conflict of Laws 15.IV,
IV. Incidents of Divorce Decrees: Support and Custody
404 Social Security Disability Claims--Practice and Procedure APP 2, Appendix 2.
Social Security Rulings (2010) HN: 18,21 (S.Ct.)
405 State Taxation P 22.07, STATE TAXATION OF INDIAN TRIBES AND
ACTIVITIES CONDUCTED ON THEIR RESERVATIONS (2011) HN: 24
(S.Ct.)
406 State Taxation P 4.24, POWER OF CONGRESS UNDER THE COMMERCE
CLAUSE TO RESTRICT AND EXPAND STATE TAX POWER (2011) HN: 31
(S.Ct.)
407 Sutherland Statutes and Statutory Construction s 51:5, General and special acts
(2010)
408 Treatise on Constitutional Law s 11.11(b), Interpreting Congressional Silence
(2011) HN: 31 (S.Ct.)
409 Treatise on Constitutional Law s 13.11(f), Tribal Power to Tax (2011) HN:
17,24,36 (S.Ct.)
410 Treatise on Constitutional Law s 13.6(a)(iii)(1), The Application of the Complete
Auto Test (2011)

411 1 West's Federal Forms s 61, Petition for Certiorari-List of Parties (2011)
412 1 West's Federal Forms s 66, Petition for Certiorari-Opinions Below (2011)
413 1 West's Federal Forms s 68, Petition for Certiorari-Constitutional Provisions,
Treaties, Statutes, Ordinances and Regulations Involved (2011)
414 1 West's Federal Forms s 69, Petition for Certiorari-Concise Statement of the
Case (2011)
415 1 West's Federal Forms s 81, Petition for Certiorari-Reasons for Granting the
Writ-Federal or Indian Lands Case (2011)
416 Williston on Contracts s 63:47, Particular acts constituting repudiation (2011)
HN: 21 (S.Ct.)
417 116 Am. Jur. Trials 395, Arbitration in Indian Country-Settling Business Dis-
putes with Native American Tribes (2011) HN: 2,5,8 (S.Ct.)
418 Am. Jur. 2d Constitutional Law s 643, Limitations (2011) HN: 21 (S.Ct.)
419 Am. Jur. 2d Indians s 10, Applicability of doctrine of sovereign immunity-Waiver
by tribe (2011)
420 Am. Jur. 2d Indians s 14, Power to tax (2011) HN: 2 (S.Ct.)
421 Am. Jur. 2d Indians s 69, Taxes relating to minerals, oil, and gas (2011) HN: 24
(S.Ct.)
422 Am. Jur. 2d State and Local Taxation s 157, Royalties under oil and gas lease
(2011) HN: 4,36 (S.Ct.)
423 Am. Jur. 2d State and Local Taxation s 547, Production and severance taxes
(2011) HN: 35 (S.Ct.)
424 Am. Jur. 2d State and Local Taxation s 64, Relinquishment of taxing power
(2011) HN: 19 (S.Ct.)
425 CA Jur. 3d Indians s 2, Sovereignty (2011)
426 CA Jur. 3d Indians s 25, In general; to tax (2011)
427 CA Jur. 3d Mines and Minerals s 84, Generally (2011) HN: 4 (S.Ct.)
428 CJS Commerce s 112, Local activities in connection with interstate commerce
(2011) HN: 36 (S.Ct.)
429 CJS Commerce s 14, Where Congress has not acted (2011) HN: 31 (S.Ct.)
430 CJS Constitutional Law s 721, Limitations and restrictions (2011) HN: 18,21
(S.Ct.)
431 CJS Indians s 140, Generally (2011) HN: 2,8 (S.Ct.)
432 CJS Indians s 141, Severance tax (2011) HN: 17,24 (S.Ct.)
433 CJS Indians s 27, Status and power-Nature and extent of Indian sovereignty
(2011) HN: 22 (S.Ct.)
434 CJS Indians s 28, Authority over tribe in general (2011) HN: 23 (S.Ct.)
435 CJS Indians s 62, Regulation of nonmembers (2011) HN: 8,10,11 (S.Ct.)
436 CJS Taxation s 15, Surrender or suspension of power (2011) HN: 19,20 (S.Ct.)

437 Encyclopedia of Mississippi Law s 72:10, Jurisdiction-Criminal jurisdiction
(2010) HN: 5 (S.Ct.)
438 Encyclopedia of Mississippi Law s 72:18, Exclusion of persons from reservation
lands (2010)
439 FL Jur. 2d Indians s 2, Indian treaties and rights in land (2011) HN: 24 (S.Ct.)
440 FL Jur. 2d Taxation s 104, Imposition of taxes in tribal lands (2011) HN: 1,2,7
(S.Ct.)
441 FL Jur. 2d Taxation s 132, Taxing power of Native American tribes (2011) HN:
24 (S.Ct.)
442 FL Jur. 2d Taxation s 140, Cases not finding estoppel (2011) HN: 4,36 (S.Ct.)
443 FL Jur. 2d Taxation s 163, Generally (2011) HN: 33 (S.Ct.)
444 TRIBAL JURISDICTION OVER NONMEMBERS, 32 NO. 5 ABA Trends 4, 7
(2001) HN: 1 (S.Ct.)
445 TRIBAL BONDS: INDIAN SOVEREIGNTY AND THE TAX LEGISLATIVE
PROCESS, 46 Admin. L. Rev. 333, 368 (1994) HN: 1 (S.Ct.)
446 SHARING THE BURDEN: ALLOCATING THE RISK OF CERLCA
CLEANUP COSTS, 50 A.F. L. Rev. 65, 133+ (2001) HN: 20,21 (S.Ct.)
447 TREAT ALL MEN ALIKE : AN ANALYSIS OF UNITED STATES V. WHITE
MOUNTAIN APACHE TRIBE AND SUGGESTIONS FOR TRUE REPARA-
TION, 38 Akron L. Rev. 413, 461 (2005) HN: 20 (S.Ct.)
448 RETROACTIVITY, THE RULE OF LAW, AND THE CONSTITUTION, 51
Ala. L. Rev. 1095, 1121 (2000) HN: 21 (S.Ct.)
449 THE STATUS OF THE SOVEREIGN ACTS AND UNMISTAKABILITY DOC-
TRINES INT HE WAKE OF WINSTAR: AN INTERIM REPORT, 51 Ala. L.
Rev. 1177, 1237+ (2000) HN: 20,21 (S.Ct.)
450 "INDIAN COUNTRY" AND THE NATURE AND SCOPE OF TRIBAL SELF-
GOVERNMENT IN ALASKA, 22 Alaska L. Rev. 1, 34+ (2005) HN: 1,8 (S.Ct.)
451 A COMITY OF ERRORS: WHY JOHN V. BAKER IS ONLY A TENTATIVE
FIRST STEP IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION, 18 Alaska L. Rev. 1, 57+ (2001)
HN: 1 (S.Ct.)
452 INDIAN COUNTRY AND INHERENT TRIBAL AUTHORITY: WILL THEY
SURVIVE ANCSA?, 14 Alaska L. Rev. 443, 470 (1997) HN: 5 (S.Ct.)
453 WARRANTLESS SEARCHES FOR ALCOHOL BY NATIVE ALASKAN VIL-
LAGES: A PERMISSIBLE EXERCISE OF SOVEREIGN RIGHTS OR AN AS-
SAULT ON CIVIL LIBERTIES?, 14 Alaska L. Rev. 471, 499+ (1997) HN: 2,5,7
(S.Ct.)
454 TRIBAL COURT JURISDICTION AND PUBLIC LAW 280: WHAT ROLE
FOR TRIBAL COURTS IN ALASKA?, 10 Alaska L. Rev. 335, 361 (1993) HN:
8 (S.Ct.)
455 THE WAIVER OF TRIBAL SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY IN THE CONTRAC-
TUAL CONTEXT: CONFLICT BETWEEN THE NINTH CIRCUIT AND THE

ALASKA SUPREME COURT?, 10 Alaska L. Rev. 363, 399 (1993) HN: 22
(S.Ct.)
456 INDIAN COUNTRY IN CYBER SPACE: BELLA HESS AND COMMERCE
CLAUSE CONSTRAINTS ON INTERSTATE, MAIL-ORDER TRANSAC-
TIONS, 71 Alb. L. Rev. 401, 414+ (2008) HN: 20 (S.Ct.)
457 STATE TAXPAYERS' VIEW OF SECTION 106(a) OF THE BANKRUPTCY
REFORM ACT OF 1994, 3 Am. Bankr. Inst. L. Rev. 441, 467 (1995)
458 BITTLE V. BAHE: A DRUNKEN MISTAKE, 34 Am. Indian L. Rev. 123, 150+
(2010)
459 HOW THE ANTI-GAMING BACKLASH IS REDEFINING TRIBAL GOV-
ERNMENT FUNCTIONS, 34 Am. Indian L. Rev. 171, 201+ (2010) HN: 1,5,8
(S.Ct.)
460 THE EVOLUTION OF THE APPLICABILITY OF ERISA TO INDIAN
TRIBES: WE MAY FINALLY HAVE CONGRESSIONAL INTENT, BUT IT'S
STILL FLAWED, 34 Am. Indian L. Rev. 259, 289 (2010) HN: 1 (S.Ct.)
461 THE NINTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS' ENFORCEMENT OF THE
FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT IN SOLIS V. MATHESON: A DISCUS-
SION OF LAWS OF GENERAL APPLICABILITY AND THEIR IMPACT ON
TRIBAL SOVEREIGNTY AND INDEPENDENCE, 34 Am. Indian L. Rev. 359,
378+ (2010) HN: 2,5,8 (S.Ct.)
462 CONFERENCE TRANSCRIPT: THE NEW REALISM: THE NEXT GENERA-
TION OF SCHOLARSHIP IN FEDERAL INDIAN LAW, 32 Am. Indian L. Rev.
1, 150 (2008)
463 FORMALISM AND JUDICIAL SUPREMACY IN FEDERAL INDIAN LAW,
32 Am. Indian L. Rev. 391, 439 (2008) HN: 23 (S.Ct.)
464 HIPAA AND PATIENT PRIVACY: TRIBAL POLICIES AS ADDED MEANS
FOR ADDRESSING INDIAN HEALTH DISPARITIES, 31 Am. Indian L. Rev.
1, 39 (2007) HN: 1,5 (S.Ct.)
465 HONOR AMONG THIEVES: THE ABSENCE OF ADEQUATE ENFORCE-
MENT PROTECTIONS FOR NATIVE AMERICAN ROYALTY THEFT, 30
Am. Indian L. Rev. 223, 245+ (2006) HN: 1,23 (S.Ct.)
466 COLONIZING THE LAST FRONTIER, 29 Am. Indian L. Rev. 1, 42 (2005)
467 SAWNAWGEZEWOG : "THE INDIAN PROBLEM" AND THE LOST ART OF
SURVIVAL, 28 Am. Indian L. Rev. 35, 105 (2004)
468 "WITH A VERY GREAT BLAME ON OUR HEARTS": REPARATIONS, RE-
CONCILIATION, AND AN AMERICAN INDIAN PLEA FOR PEACE WITH
JUSTICE, 27 Am. Indian L. Rev. 1, 175 (2003)
469 THE LAND MUST HOLD THE PEOPLE: NATIVE MODES OF TERRITORI-
ALITY AND CONTEMPORARY TRIBAL JUSTIFICATIONS FOR PLACING
LAND INTO TRUST THROUGH 25 C.F.R. PART 151, 27 Am. Indian L. Rev.
421, 502 (2003) HN: 2 (S.Ct.)
470 EASEMENTS ON TRIBAL SOVEREIGNTY, 26 Am. Indian L. Rev. 105, 131+

(2002) HN: 8,17,24 (S.Ct.)
471 STATE CORPORATIONS FOR INDIAN RESERVATIONS, 26 Am. Indian L.
Rev. 41, 61+ (2002) HN: 21,23,24 (S.Ct.)
472 "NEVER LAY A SALMON ON THE GROUND WITH HIS HEAD TOWARD
THE RIVER": STATE OF WASHINGTON SUES YAKAMAS OVER ALCO-
HOL BAN, 26 Am. Indian L. Rev. 67, 87+ (2002) HN: 8 (S.Ct.)
473 EXERCISING CULTURAL SELF-DETERMINATION: THE MAKAH INDIAN
TRIBE GOES WHALING, 25 Am. Indian L. Rev. 165, 273 (2001)
474 JUST SAY THE "MAGIC WORDS": ADVOCATING AN ARBITRATION
CLAUSE SHOULD BE HELD TO AN EXPRESS WAIVER STANDARD FOR
THE DOCTRINE OF INDIAN SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY - C&L ENTER-
PRISES V. CITIZEN BAND POTAWATOMI INDIAN TRIBE, 25 Am. Indian
L. Rev. 315, 351+ (2001) HN: 23,24,36 (S.Ct.)
475 A DISCUSSION OF THE APPLICATION OF FICA AND FUTA TO INDIAN
TRIBES' ON-RESERVATION ACTIVITIES, 25 Am. Indian L. Rev. 37, 64
(2001) HN: 36 (S.Ct.)
476 THE DE FACTO TERMINATION OF ALASKA NATIVE SOVEREIGNTY:
AN ANOMALY IN AN ERA OF SELF-DETERMINATION, 24 Am. Indian L.
Rev. 421, 454 (2000)
477 NATIONS WITHIN A NATION: THE EVOLUTION OF TRIBAL IMMUNITY,
24 Am. Indian L. Rev. 99, 128 (2000) HN: 23 (S.Ct.)
478 THE IMPACT OF THE UNFUNDED MANDATES REFORM ACT OF 1995
ON TRIBAL GOVERNMENTS, 22 Am. Indian L. Rev. 445, 474 (1998) HN: 5
(S.Ct.)
479 INDIAN LAW IN THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT -- EXPERI-
ENCES IN THE 1980s AND PREDICTIONS FOR THE 1990s, 22 Am. Indian L.
Rev. 601, 610+ (1998) HN: 23 (S.Ct.)
480 WINNER, BEST APPELLATE BRIEF IN THE 1998 NATIVE AMERICAN
LAW STUDENT ASSOCIATION MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 23 Am. In-
dian L. Rev. 181, 202 (1998) HN: 21 (S.Ct.)
481 RECENT DEVELOPMENTS, 21 Am. Indian L. Rev. 183, 191 (1997) HN: 23
(S.Ct.)
482 NARRAGANSETT INDIAN TRIBE OF RHODE ISLAND v. NAR-
RAGANSETT ELECTRIC COMPANY: WHEN DEPENPDENT INDIAN COM-
MUNITIES FALL WITHIN INDIAN COUNTRY, 21 Am. Indian L. Rev. 193,
204+ (1997) HN: 8 (S.Ct.)
483 TRIBAL COURT GENERAL CIVIL JURISDICTION OVER ACTIONS
BETWEEN NON-INDIAN PLAINTIFFS AND DEFENDANTS: STRATE V. A-
1 CONTRACTORS, 22 Am. Indian L. Rev. 191, 206+ (1997) HN: 1,5,8 (S.Ct.)
dian L. Rev. 263, 275+ (1997) HN: 8,16 (S.Ct.)

485 THE TRIBAL EXHAUSTION DOCTRINE: "JUST STAY ON THE GOOD
ROADS, AND YOU'VE GOT NOTHING TO WORRY ABOUT", 22 Am. Indian
L. Rev. 65, 99+ (1997) HN: 8,10,23 (S.Ct.)
486 THE FLATHEAD WATER QUALITY STANDARDS DISPUTE: LEGAL
BASES FOR TRIBAL REGULATORY AUTHORITY OVER NON-INDIAN
RESERVATION LANDS, 20 Am. Indian L. Rev. 151, 224+ (1996)
487 A "CIVIL" METHOD OF LAW ENFORCEMENT ON THE RESERVATION:
IN REM FORFEITURE AND INDIAN LAW, 20 Am. Indian L. Rev. 307, 334+
(1996) HN: 8,10,11 (S.Ct.)
dian L. Rev. 281, 299+ (1994)
489 A NEW CORRIDOR FOR THE MAZE: TRIBAL CRIMINAL JURISDICTION
AND NONMEMBER INDIANS, 17 Am. Indian L. Rev. 349, 456+ (1992) HN:
8,10,11 (S.Ct.)
490 THE POLICY CHOICES TRIBES FACE WHEN DECIDING WHETHER TO
ENACT A WATER CODE, 17 Am. Indian L. Rev. 523, 588 (1992) HN: 24
(S.Ct.)
491 NATURAL RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT ON INDIAN RESERVATIONS:
OVERVIEW OF TRIBAL, STATE, AND FEDERAL JURISDICTION, 17 Am.
Indian L. Rev. 71, 98+ (1992) HN: 2 (S.Ct.)
492 SURVEY OF CIVIL JURISDICTION IN INDIAN COUNTRY 1990, 16 Am. In-
dian L. Rev. 319, 375+ (1991) HN: 2,9,24 (S.Ct.)
493 THE LEGAL ORIGIN AND NATURE OF INDIAN HOUSING AUTHORITIES
AND THE HUD INDIAN HOUSING PROGRAMS, 13 Am. Indian L. Rev. 109,
174+ (1988) HN: 8,10 (S.Ct.)
494 TRIBAL SOVEREIGNTY: FEDERAL COURT REVIEW OF TRIBAL COURT
DECISIONS-JUDICIAL INTRUSION INTO TRIBAL SOVEREIGNTY, 13 Am.
Indian L. Rev. 175, 192+ (1988) HN: 34 (S.Ct.)
495 TAXATION: TRIBAL TAXATION, SECRETARIAL APPROVAL, AND
STATE TAXATION-MERRION AND BEYOND, 10 Am. Indian L. Rev. 167,
168+ (1983) HN: 23,24,34 (S.Ct.)
496 AMERICAN INDIAN LAW CODES: PRAGMATIC LAW AND TRIBAL
IDENTITY, 56 Am. J. Comp. L. 29, 59+ (2008) HN: 24 (S.Ct.)
497 THE LEGACY OF COLONIALISM, 51 Am. J. Comp. L. 409, 455 (2003)
498 INDIAN COMMON LAW: THE ROLE OF CUSTOM IN AMERICAN INDIAN
TRIBAL COURTS (Part I of II), 46 Am. J. Comp. L. 287, 337+ (1998) HN: 23
(S.Ct.)
499 UNDOING INDIAN LAW ONE CASE AT A TIME: JUDICIAL MINIMALISM
AND TRIBAL SOVEREIGNTY, 50 Am. U. L. Rev. 1177, 1268+ (2001)
500 SURVEY OF GOVERNMENT CONTRACT CASES IN THE UNITED
STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT: 1997 IN RE-

VIEW, 47 Am. U. L. Rev. 1393, 1489 (1998) HN: 20 (S.Ct.)
501 GOVERNMENT CONTRACT CASES IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF
APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT: 1995 IN REVIEW, 45 Am. U. L.
Rev. 1657, 1748 (1996)
502 RETHINKING BOYLE v. UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORP. GOVERNMENT
CONTRACTOR DEFENSE: JUDICIAL PREEMPTION OF THE DOCTRINE
OF SEPARATION OF POWERS?, 39 Am. U. L. Rev. 391, 436 (1990) HN: 18
(S.Ct.)
503 "TO SECURE EQUAL RIGHTS TO ALL CITIZENS", 2 Appalachian J. L. 1, 13
(2003) HN: 24 (S.Ct.)
504 THE COQUILLE INDIAN TRIBE, SAME-SEX MARRIAGE, AND SPOUSAL
BENEFITS: A PRACTICAL GUIDE, 26 Ariz. J. Int'l & Comp. L. 509, 546
(2009) HN: 23 (S.Ct.)
505 CHANGING WINDS: RECONFIGURING THE LEGAL FRAMEWORK FOR
RENEWABLE-ENERGY DEVELOPMENT IN INDIAN COUNTRY, 52 Ariz.
L. Rev. 823, 852 (2010) HN: 8 (S.Ct.)
506 DOING BUSINESS WITH INDIANS AND THE THREE "S"ES: SECRETARI-
AL APPROVAL, SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY, AND SUBJECT MATTER JUR-
ISDICTION, 36 Ariz. L. Rev. 169, 179+ (1994) HN: 24,36 (S.Ct.)
507 THE CRUCIBLE OF SOVEREIGNTY: ANALYZING ISSUES OF TRIBAL
JURISDICTION, 31 Ariz. L. Rev. 329, 331+ (1989) HN: 8,23 (S.Ct.)
508 AMERICAN INDIAN ENTREPRENEURS: UNIQUE CHALLENGES, UNLIM-
ITED POTENTIAL, 40 Ariz. St. L.J. 1297, 1341+ (2008)
509 JUSTICE AND THE OUTSIDER: JURISDICTION OVER NONMEMBERS IN
TRIBAL LEGAL SYSTEMS, 37 Ariz. St. L.J. 1047, 1125+ (2005) HN: 2,3,7
(S.Ct.)
510 TRIBES, WARS, AND THE FEDERAL COURTS: APPLYING THE MYTHS
AND THE METHODS OF MARBURY v. MADISON TO TRIBAL COURTS'
CRIMINAL JURISDICTION, 36 Ariz. St. L.J. 77, 135 (2004) HN: 23 (S.Ct.)
511 RED ROVER, RED ROVER: A CALL FOR COMITY IN LINKING TRIBAL
AND STATE LONG-ARM PROVISIONS FOR SERVICE OF PROCESS IN IN-
DIAN COUNTRY, 35 Ariz. St. L.J. 633, 693+ (2003) HN: 10 (S.Ct.)
512 THERE IS NO FEDERAL SUPREMACY CLAUSE FOR INDIAN TRIBES, 34
Ariz. St. L.J. 113, 260 (2002)
513 DEPARTING FROM THE ROUTINE: APPLICATION OF INDIAN TRIBAL
LAW UNDER THE FEDERAL TORT CLAIMS ACT, 32 Ariz. St. L.J. 695, 745
(2000) HN: 8 (S.Ct.)
514 AN INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW OF TAXATION AND INDIAN
GAMING, 29 Ariz. St. L.J. 251, 271+ (1997) HN: 20 (S.Ct.)
515 THE SEMINOLE CASE, FEDERALISM, AND THE INDIAN COMMERCE
CLAUSE, 29 Ariz. St. L.J. 3, 23 (1997) HN: 20 (S.Ct.)

516 OF FAIRNESS AND MIGHT: THE LIMITS OF SOVEREIGN POWER TO
TAX AFTER WINSTAR, 28 Ariz. St. L.J. 1193, 1230+ (1996) HN: 19,20,21
(S.Ct.)
517 THE LEGACY OF ALLOTMENT, 27 Ariz. St. L.J. 1, 78 (1995)
518 APPLICATION OF FEDERAL LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT STATUTES TO
NATIVE AMERICAN TRIBES: RESPECTING SOVEREIGNTY AND
ACHIEVING CONSISTENCY, 26 Ariz. St. L.J. 681, 746+ (1994) HN: 2,5,10
(S.Ct.)
519 SEPARATE SOVEREIGNS, CIVIL RIGHTS, AND THE SACRED TEXT: THE
LEGACY OF JUSTICE THURGOOD MARSHALL'S INDIAN LAW JURIS-
PRUDENCE, 26 Ariz. St. L.J. 495, 510+ (1994) HN: 6,7,8 (S.Ct.)
520 NEW-AGE FEDERALISM AND THE MARKET PARTICIPANT DOCTRINE,
22 Ariz. St. L.J. 559, 623+ (1990) HN: 30,31 (S.Ct.)
521 TRIBAL POWER TO ZONE NONMEMBER LAND WITHIN RESERVA-
TIONS: THE UNCERTAIN STATUS OF RETAINED TRIBAL POWER OVER
NONMEMBERS, 21 Ariz. St. L.J. 769, 778+ (1989) HN: 8,10,24 (S.Ct.)
522 REDRESSING THE LEGACY OF CONQUEST: A VISION QUEST FOR A
DECOLONIZED FEDERAL INDIAN LAW, 46 Ark. L. Rev. 77, 159+ (1993)
523 TRIBAL POWER OVER NON-INDIANS: TRIBAL COURTS AT A CIVIL
CROSSROADS TWIN CITY CONSTRUCTION COMPANY V. TURTLE
MOUNTAIN BAND OF CHIPPEWA INDIANS, 42 Ark. L. Rev. 1027, 1037+
(1989) HN: 2,8,24 (S.Ct.)
524 CONTRACTING WITH THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, 114 Banking L.J.
635, 641+ (1997) HN: 21 (S.Ct.)
525 BETTING THE RANCHERIA: ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTIONS AS BAR-
GAINING CHIPS UNDER THE INDIAN GAMING REGULATORY ACT, 36
B.C. Envtl. Aff. L. Rev. 171, 205 (2009) HN: 20 (S.Ct.)
526 CANDIDATE CONSERVATION AGREEMENTS UNDER THE EN-
DANGERED SPECIES ACT: PROSPECTS AND PERILS OF AN ADMINIS-
TRATIVE EXPERIMENT, 25 B.C. Envtl. Aff. L. Rev. 175, 212 (1997) HN: 21
(S.Ct.)
527 INDIAN COUNTRY'S BORDERS: TERRITORIALITY, IMMUNITY, AND
THE CONSTRUCTION OF TRIBAL SOVEREIGNTY, 51 B.C. L. Rev. 595,
668+ (2010) HN: 5,8 (S.Ct.)
528 FORBEARANCE AGREEMENTS TO CONSIDER GOODWILL AS REGU-
LATORY CAPITAL: BINDING CONTRACTS THRIFTS SHOULD RECOV-
ER, 73 B.U. L. Rev. 451, 467+ (1993) HN: 20,21,24 (S.Ct.)
529 NATIVE AMERICAN SOVEREIGNTY MEETS A BEND IN THE ROAD: DIF-
FICULTIES IN NEVADA V. HICKS, 2002 B.Y.U. L. Rev. 137, 174+ (2002)
HN: 8,10,16 (S.Ct.)
530 HOME DANCE, THE HOPI, AND BLACK MESA COAL: CONQUEST AND
ENDURANCE IN THE AMERICAN SOUTHWEST, 1996 B.Y.U. L. Rev. 449,

482+ (1996) HN: 17,24,36 (S.Ct.)
531 ESSAY: POWER AND PRESUMPTIONS; RULES AND RHETORIC; INSTI-
TUTIONS AND INDIAN LAW, 1994 B.Y.U. L. Rev. 451, 497+ (1994) HN:
2,8,24 (S.Ct.)
532 WHO IS AN INDIAN? DURO v. REINA'S EXAMINATION OF TRIBAL SOV-
EREIGNTY AND CRIMINAL JURISDICTION OVER NONMEMBER INDI-
ANS, 1988 B.Y.U. L. Rev. 161, 179+ (1988) HN: 8,23 (S.Ct.)
533 THE NEW FRONTIER OF FEDERAL INDIAN LAW: THE UNITED STATES
SUPREME COURT'S ACTIVE DIVESTITURE OF TRIBAL SOVEREIGNTY,
23 Buff. Pub. Int. L.J. 1, 50 (2005) HN: 10 (S.Ct.)
534 THE LIBERAL FORCES DRIVING THE SUPREME COURT'S DIVESTMENT
AND DEBASEMENT OF TRIBAL SOVEREIGNTY, 18 Buff. Pub. Int. L.J.
147, 157+ (2000) HN: 8,23,24 (S.Ct.)
535 THE EFFECT OF THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT'S DECISIONS
DURING THE LAST QUARTER OF THE NINETEENTH CENTURY ON TRI-
BAL CRIMINAL JURISDICTION (FN1), 14 BYU J. Pub. L. 173, 189 (2000)
536 (TRIBAL) SOVEREIGNTY AND ILLIBERALISM, 95 Cal. L. Rev. 799, 848
(2007)
537 CONQUERING THE CULTURAL FRONTIER: THE NEW SUBJECTIVISM
OF THE SUPREME COURT IN INDIAN LAW, 84 Cal. L. Rev. 1573, 1655+
(1996) HN: 23,24,34 (S.Ct.)
538 CONGRESSIONAL INTENT, PRACTICAL REASONING, AND THE DY-
NAMIC NATURE OF FEDERAL INDIAN LAW, 78 Cal. L. Rev. 1137, 1240+
(1990) HN: 23,24 (S.Ct.)
539 MARTINEZ, OLIPHANT AND FEDERAL COURT REVIEW OF TRIBAL
ACTIVITY UNDER THE INDIAN CIVIL RIGHTS ACT, 10 Campbell L. Rev.
411, 438 (1988)
540 SOCIAL MOVEMENTS AND THE ETHICAL CONSTRUCTION OF LAW, 37
Cap. U. L. Rev. 535, 582 (2009) HN: 7 (S.Ct.)
541 THE MAPS OF SOVEREIGNTY: A MEDITATION, 12 Cardozo L. Rev. 959,
1006+ (1991) HN: 20 (S.Ct.)
542 SAFEGUARDING THE INTEGRITY OF TRIBAL ELECTIONS THROUGH
CAMPAIGN FINANCE REGULATION, 8 Cardozo Pub. L. Pol'y & Ethics J.
103, 177+ (2009) HN: 8 (S.Ct.)
543 WHAT A DIFFERENCE A CONTRACT MAKES: PROTECTING TAXPAY-
ERS FROM CHANGES IN THE TAX CODE, 57 Case W. Res. L. Rev. 483, 506
(2007) HN: 20 (S.Ct.)
544 "TAKING" THE TIME TO LOOK BACKWARD, 42 Cath. U. L. Rev. 901, 933
(1993) HN: 21 (S.Ct.)
545 REGULATORY TAKINGS IN THE UNITED STATES CLAIMS COURT: AD-
JUSTING THE BURDENS THAT IN FAIRNESS AND EQUITY OUGHT TO
BE BORNE BY SOCIETY AS A WHOLE, 40 Cath. U. L. Rev. 549, 569 (1991)

546 PREEMPTING INDIAN PREEMPTION: COTTON PETROLEUM CORP. v.
NEW MEXICO, 39 Cath. U. L. Rev. 639, 671+ (1990) HN: 24,25,36 (S.Ct.)
547 ENFORCING THE FEDERAL-INDIAN TRUST RELATIONSHIP AFTER
MITCHELL, 31 Cath. U. L. Rev. 635, 683 (1982)
548 INDIGENOUS SELF-GOVERNMENT, ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION,
AND THE CONSENT OF THE GOVERNED: A TRIBAL ENVIRONMENTAL
REVIEW PROCESS, 5 Colo. J. Int'l Envtl. L. & Pol'y 59, 104+ (1994) HN:
1,8,16 (S.Ct.)
549 IS YOUR GOVERNMENT CONTRACT WORTH THE PAPER IT'S WRITTEN
ON? AN EXAMINATION OF WINSTAR V. UNITED STATES, 1996 Colum.
Bus. L. Rev. 119, 143 (1996) HN: 21 (S.Ct.)
550 GROUP RIGHTS TO CULTURAL SURVIVAL: INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY
RIGHTS IN NATIVE AMERICAN CULTURAL SYMBOLS, 29 Colum. Hum.
Rts. L. Rev. 355, 366+ (1998) HN: 1 (S.Ct.)
551 THE HUNT FOR GRAY WHALES: THE DILEMMA OF NATIVE AMERIC-
AN TREATY RIGHTS AND THE INTERNATIONAL MORATORIUM ON
WHALING, 22 Colum. J. Envtl. L. 319, 352 (1997)
552 THE ANADARKO DILEMMA: CAN "OFFSHORE" BANKING JOIN
GAMBLING IN THE NATIVE AMERICAN ARSENAL OF ECONOMIC DE-
VELOPMENT?, 32 Colum. J.L. & Soc. Probs. 99, 123+ (1998) HN: 23 (S.Ct.)
553 MIXING BODIES AND BELIEFS: THE PREDICAMENT OF TRIBES, 101
Colum. L. Rev. 702, 772 (2001) HN: 8 (S.Ct.)
554 THE CONSENT PARADIGM: TRIBAL SOVEREIGNTY AT THE MILLENNI-
UM, 96 Colum. L. Rev. 809, 902+ (1996) HN: 9,23 (S.Ct.)
555 FORBEARANCE AGREEMENTS: INVALID CONTRACTS FOR THE SUR-
RENDER OF SOVEREIGNTY, 92 Colum. L. Rev. 426, 473+ (1992) HN:
19,20,21 (S.Ct.)
556 A SPECTRUM REVOLUTION: DEPLOYING ULTRAWIDEBAND TECHNO-
LOGY ON NATIVE AMERICAN LANDS, 11 CommLaw Conspectus 277, 305+
(2003) HN: 2,5,23 (S.Ct.)
557 CLIMATE CHANGE, SUSTAINABILITY AND GLOBALIZATION: CHART-
ING THE FUTURE OF INDIGENOUS ENVIRONMENTAL SELF-
DETERMINATION, 4 Envt'l & Energy L. & Pol'y J. 188, 255+ (2009)
558 THE NEWEST FORM OF INDIAN GAMING: GAMING THE UNIONS, 11
Fla. Coastal L. Rev. 91, 106 (2009)
559 THE POWER OF INDIAN TRIBES TO TAX THE INCOME OF PROFES-
SIONAL ATHLETES AND ENTERTAINERS WHO PERFORM IN INDIAN
COUNTRY, 41 Conn. L. Rev. 1785, 1814+ (2009) HN: 1,5,24 (S.Ct.)
560 MONTANA AT THE CROSSROADS, 38 Conn. L. Rev. 631, 647+ (2006) HN:
7,8,10 (S.Ct.)
561 IMPLICIT DIVESTITURE RECONSIDERED: OUTTAKES FROM THE CO-
HEN'S HANDBOOK CUTTING-ROOM FLOOR, 38 Conn. L. Rev. 731, 776+

(2006) HN: 2,5,8 (S.Ct.)
562 LIBERALISM AND REPUBLICANISM IN FEDERAL INDIAN LAW, 38
Conn. L. Rev. 813, 831+ (2006) HN: 24 (S.Ct.)
563 NEVADA V. HICKS AND ITS IMPLICATION ON AMERICAN INDIAN
SOVEREIGNTY, 34 Conn. L. Rev. 1249, 1280 (2002) HN: 20 (S.Ct.)
564 THE DORMANT INDIAN COMMERCE CLAUSE, 27 Conn. L. Rev. 1055,
1249 (1995) HN: 36 (S.Ct.)
565 CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTS WITH INDIAN TRIBES OR ON TRIBAL
LANDS, 26-WTR Construction Law. 12, 16 (2006)
566 INDIAN CIVIL JURISDICTION OVER LAND HELD IN FEE BY NON-
INDIANS: A JUDICIAL CHALLENGE IN BRENDALE v. CONFEDERATED
TRIBES & BANDS OF YAKIMA INDIAN NATION, 7 Cooley L. Rev. 63, 84
(1990) HN: 5 (S.Ct.)
567 THE EMERGENCE OF JURISDICTIONAL RESEQUENCING IN THE FED-
ERAL COURTS, 87 Cornell L. Rev. 1, 98 (2001)
568 SOVEREIGNTY BY SUFFERANCE: THE ILLUSION OF INDIAN TRIBAL
SOVEREIGNTY, 79 Cornell L. Rev. 404, 451 (1994) HN: 1 (S.Ct.)
569 PRIVATIZING FEDERAL LOW INCOME HOUSING ASSISTANCE: THE
CASE OF PUBLIC HOUSING, 75 Cornell L. Rev. 878, 948 (1990) HN: 18,21
(S.Ct.)
570 LEAVING THE RESERVATION: THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT ELIMINATES TRI-
BAL COURT SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION OVER SUITS BETWEEN
NONMEMBERS IN A-1 CONTRACTORS v. STRATE, 30 Creighton L. Rev.
865, 911+ (1997) HN: 8 (S.Ct.)
571 THE EXTENT OF INDIAN REGULATORY AUTHORITY OVER NON-
INDIANS: SOUTH DAKOTA V. BOURLAND, 27 Creighton L. Rev. 605, 659+
(1994) HN: 8,17,24 (S.Ct.)
572 CIVIL LIBERTIES GUARANTEES WHEN INDIAN TRIBES ACT AS MA-
JORITY SOCIETIES: THE CASE OF THE WINNEBAGO RETROCESSION,
21 Creighton L. Rev. 773, 799+ (1988) HN: 24 (S.Ct.)
573 REPLY DOUBLE BIND: INDIAN NATIONS v. THE SUPREME COURT, 119
Harv. L. Rev. F. 1, 1 (2005) HN: 8 (S.Ct.)
574 EMPLOYMENT SUITS AGAINST INDIAN TRIBES: BALANCING SOVER-
EIGN RIGHTS AND CIVIL RIGHTS, 70 Denv. U. L. Rev. 359, 392+ (1993)
HN: 2 (S.Ct.)
575 WRONG TURN IN CYBERSPACE: USING ICANN TO ROUTE AROUND
THE APA AND THE CONSTITUTION, 50 Duke L.J. 17, 186 (2000) HN: 19,21
(S.Ct.)
576 CRIMINAL JURISDICTION OF TRIBAL COURTS OVER NONMEMBER IN-
DIANS: THE CIRCUIT SPLIT, 1989 Duke L.J. 1053, 1078+ (1989) HN: 9,11,13
(S.Ct.)

577 SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY-INDIAN TRIBES-INDIAN MINING LEASING
ACT OF 1938-TAXATION-RESTITUTION The United States Supreme Court
held that an Indian tribe could not recover state taxes paid by its mineral lessee
when the taxes we, 37 Duq. L. Rev. 671, 686+ (1999)
578 A SINGLE PENNY, AN INCH OF LAND, OR AN OUNCE OF SOVER-
EIGNTY: THE PROBLEM OF TRIBAL SOVEREIGNTY AND WATER
QUALITY REGULATION UNDER THE MAINE INDIAN CLAIMS SETTLE-
MENT ACT, 37 Ecology L.Q. 1159, 1216 (2010)
579 THE LAST GREEN LAGOON: HOW AND WHY THE BUSH ADMINISTRA-
TION SHOULD SAVE THE COLORADO RIVER DELTA, 28 Ecology L.Q.
903, 992 (2002) HN: 21 (S.Ct.)
580 APPLICATION OF TAKINGS LAW TO THE REGULATION OF UNPATEN-
TED MINING CLAIMS, 24 Ecology L.Q. 57, 130 (1997)
581 FULL RECIPROCITY FOR TRIBAL COURTS FROM A FEDERAL COURTS
PERSPECTIVE: A PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE FULL FAITH AND
CREDIT ACT, 45 Emory L.J. 723, 769+ (1996) HN: 1,6,23 (S.Ct.)
582 FEDERALISM AND STATE TAXATION OF MULTISTATE ENTERPRISES,
32 Emory L.J. 89, 93+ (1983) HN: 20,23,24 (S.Ct.)
583 SEVERANCE TAXES AS AN ISSUE OF ENERGY SECTIONALISM, 5 En-
ergy L.J. 357, 367+ (1984) HN: 23,24,36 (S.Ct.)
584 AHISTORICAL INDIANS AND RESERVATION RESOURCES, 40 Envtl. L.
437, 550+ (2010)
585 CASE SUMMARIES, 31 Envtl. L. 595, 719 (2001)
586 IDAHO NIBBLES AT MONTANA: CARVING OUT A THIRD EXCEPTION
FOR TRIBAL JURISDICTION OVER ENVIRONMENTAL AND NATURAL
RESOURCE MANAGEMENT, 31 Envtl. L. 721, 766+ (2001) HN: 5,7,8 (S.Ct.)
587 PROTECTING HABITAT FOR OFF-RESERVATION TRIBAL HUNTING
AND FISHING RIGHTS: TRIBAL COMANAGEMENT AS A RESERVED
RIGHT, 30 Envtl. L. 279, 316+ (2000) HN: 2,5,9 (S.Ct.)
588 TRADABLE EMISSIONS PROGRAMS: IMPLICATIONS UNDER THE TAK-
INGS CLAUSE, 26 Envtl. L. 323, 353 (1996) HN: 21 (S.Ct.)
589 NATIVE AMERICANS, 22 Envtl. L. 1225, 1249+ (1992) HN: 23 (S.Ct.)
590 PROTECTION OF THE RESERVATION ENVIRONMENT: HAZARDOUS
WASTE MANAGEMENT ON INDIAN LAND, 18 Envtl. L. 449, 491+ (1988)
HN: 8,10,11 (S.Ct.)
591 STATE TAXATION ON INDIAN RESERVATIONS: THE IMPACT OF COT-
TON PETROLEUM CORPORATION v. NEW MEXICO, 36 Fed. B. News & J.
431, 433+ (1989) HN: 25 (S.Ct.)
592 UNITED STATES v. WINSTAR CORP: AFFIRMING THE APPLICATION OF
PRIVATE CONTRACT LAW PRINCIPLES TO THE FEDERAL GOVERN-
MENT, 6 Fed. Circuit B.J. 315, 335+ (1996) HN: 19,20,21 (S.Ct.)

593 CONTRACTS, 5 Fed. Circuit B.J. 447, 448 (1995)
594 ACCESS TO LOCAL RIGHTS-OF-WAY: A REBUTTAL, 55 Fed. Comm. L.J.
251, 272 (2003)
595 THE CONTRACTING STATE, 28 Fla. St. U. L. Rev. 155, 214 (2000) HN:
18,21 (S.Ct.)
596 LICENSE TO DISCRIMINATE: THE APPLICATION OF SOVEREIGN IM-
MUNITY TO EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION CLAIMS BROUGHT BY
NON-NATIVE AMERICAN EMPLOYEES OF TRIBALLY OWNED BUSI-
NESSES, 25 Fla. St. U. L. Rev. 679, 690+ (1998) HN: 23 (S.Ct.)
597 INDIGENOUS ETHICS AND ALIEN LAWS: NATIVE TRADITIONS AND
THE UNITED STATES LEGAL SYSTEM, 66 Fordham L. Rev. 1565, 1584
(1998)
598 THE MINER'S CANARY: TRIBAL CONTROL OF AMERICAN INDIAN
EDUCATION AND THE FIRST AMENDMENT, 19 Fordham Urb. L.J. 1019,
1046 (1992)
599 THE NEW LACHES: CREATING TITLE WHERE NONE EXISTED, 16 Geo.
Mason L. Rev. 357, 401 (2009) HN: 23 (S.Ct.)
600 THE PERILS OF ANALOGICAL REASONING: JOSEPH WILLIAM SINGER,
PROPERTY AND SOVEREIGNTY AND PROPERTY, 1 Geo. Mason U. L.
Rev. 33, 58 (1994)
601 THE GILD THAT IS KILLING THE LILY: HOW CONFUSION OVER REGU-
LATORY TAKINGS DOCTRINE IS UNDERMINING THE CORE PROTEC-
TIONS OF THE TAKINGS CLAUSE, 73 Geo. Wash. L. Rev. 429, 520 (2005)
602 LIABILITY FOR SOVEREIGN ACTS: CONGRUENCE AND EXCEPTIONAL-
ISM IN GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS LAW, 64 Geo. Wash. L. Rev. 633,
684+ (1996) HN: 20,21,22 (S.Ct.)
603 THE ABROGATION OF FORBEARANCE AGREEMENTS: FIRREA'S AMBI-
GUITIES DEMAND A MORE PRINCIPLED ANALYSIS, 61 Geo. Wash. L.
Rev. 1314, 1348 (1993) HN: 21 (S.Ct.)
604 ABROGATION OF FORBEARANCE AGREEMENTS: UNAUTHORIZED BY
FIRREA AND UNCONSTITUTIONAL, 59 Geo. Wash. L. Rev. 157, 165+
(1990) HN: 20,21,24 (S.Ct.)
605 THE COMMERCE CLAUSE AND FEDERALISM: IMPLICATIONS FOR
STATE CONTROL OF NATURAL RESOURCES, 50 Geo. Wash. L. Rev. 601,
626+ (1982) HN: 30,31 (S.Ct.)
606 TRIBAL SOVEREIGNTY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ON THE RE-
SERVATION, 4 Geo. J. on Fighting Poverty 227, 236 (1996) HN: 24 (S.Ct.)
607 COMPENSATION, REPARATIONS, & RESTITUTION: INDIAN PROPERTY
CLAIMS IN THE UNITED STATES, 28 Ga. L. Rev. 453, 480 (1994)
608 OBLIGATION: NOT TO THE LAW BUT TO THE NEIGHBOR, 18 Ga. L. Rev.
911, 927+ (1984)

609 A PROPOSED SOLUTION TO THE PROBLEM OF STATE JURISDICTION
TO TAX ON INDIAN RESERVATIONS, 26 Gonz. L. Rev. 627, 659+ (1991)
HN: 24 (S.Ct.)
610 39 NO. 22 Gov't Contractor P 281, STATUTE IMPOSING ASSESSMENT WAS
SOVEREIGN ACT FOR WHICH CONTRACTOR COULD NOT RECOVER-
FEDERAL CIRCUIT REVERSES COFC-DISSENT FILED (1997)
611 37 NO. 34 Gov't Contractor P 460, FEDERAL CIRCUIT FINDS GOVERN-
MENT BREACHED CONTRACTS WITH THRIFTS BY ENACTING FIRREA
(1995)
612 PRAIRIE BAND POTAWATOMI NATION v. WAGNON: A LOST OPPOR-
TUNITY TO RECOGNIZE DORMANCY IN THE INDIAN COMMERCE
CLAUSE, 11 Great Plains Nat. Resources J. 137, 156+ (2006) HN: 1,10,24
(S.Ct.)
613 THE SUPREME COURT'S "WHACK-A-MOLE" GAME THEORY IN FEDER-
AL INDIAN LAW, A THEORY THAT HAS NO PLACE IN THE REALM OF
ENVIRONMENTAL LAW, 7 Great Plains Nat. Resources J. 90, 168 (2002)
614 FUNDAMENTAL LEGAL PRINCIPLES AFFECTING BUSINESS TRANSAC-
TIONS IN INDIAN COUNTRY, 17 Hamline L. Rev. 417, 446+ (1994)
615 STATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY IN INDIAN COUNTRY: STATE OSHA
JURISDICTION, 17 Hamline L. Rev. 447, 475+ (1994) HN: 1,5,23 (S.Ct.)
616 JUSTICE BLACKMUN'S CONTRIBUTIONS ON THE COURT: THE COM-
MERCIAL SPEECH AND STATE TAXATION EXAMPLES, 8 Hamline L.
Rev. 29, 50 (1985)
617 FAIR WEATHER FEDERALISM AND AMERICA'S WASTE DISPOSAL
CRISIS, 27 Harv. Envtl. L. Rev. 71, 103 (2003) HN: 30 (S.Ct.)
618 THE SUPREME COURT'S NEW SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY DOCTRINE AND
THE MCCARRAN AMENDMENT: TOWARD ENDING STATE ADJUDICA-
TION OF INDIAN WATER RIGHTS, 18 Harv. Envtl. L. Rev. 433, 488 (1994)
619 INTERNATIONAL LAW AND DOMESTIC COURTS: ENHANCING SELF-
DETERMINATION FOR INDIGENOUS PEOPLES, 5 Harv. Hum. Rts. J. 65,
94+ (1992) HN: 8 (S.Ct.)
620 ACTS OF STATE AND FOREIGN SOVEREIGN OBLIGATIONS, 39 Harv.
Int'l L.J. 1, 100+ (1998) HN: 20,21 (S.Ct.)
621 SMALL STEPS ON THE LONG ROAD TO SELF-SUFFICIENCY FOR INDI-
AN NATIONS: THE INDIAN TRIBAL GOVERNMENTAL TAX STATUS
ACT OF 1982, 22 Harv. J. on Legis. 335, 372+ (1985) HN: 17,24,36 (S.Ct.)
622 AMERICAN INDIAN LAW - TRIBAL COURT CIVIL JURISDICTION -
NINTH CIRCUIT HOLDS THAT TRIBAL COURTS LACK SUBJECT MAT-
TER JURISDICTION OVER PRODUCTS LIABILITY SUITS ARISING ON
TRIBAL LAND. - FORD MOTOR CO. V. TODECHEENE, 394 F., 118 Harv. L.
Rev. 2469, 2476+ (2005) HN: 8,23 (S.Ct.)
623 ADJUDICATION AND ITS DISCONTENTS: COHERENCE AND CONCILI-

ATION IN FEDERAL INDIAN LAW, 110 Harv. L. Rev. 1754, 1784+ (1997)
HN: 23,24,25 (S.Ct.)
624 CONTRACTS - FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS REFORM, RECOVERY, AND
ENFORCEMENT ACT - FEDERAL CIRCUIT HOLDS FEDERAL GOVERN-
MENT LIABLE FOR BREECH OF THRIFT CONTRACTS. WINSTAR CORP.
v. UNITED STATES, 64 F.3d 1531 (FED. CIR. 1995) (EN, 109 Harv. L. Rev.
1162, 1167 (1996) HN: 21 (S.Ct.)
625 MARSHALLING PAST AND PRESENT: COLONIALISM, CONSTITUTION-
ALISM, AND INTERPRETATION IN FEDERAL INDIAN LAW, 107 Harv. L.
Rev. 381, 440+ (1993) HN: 36 (S.Ct.)
626 SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY-INDIAN TRIBAL SOVEREIGNTY-TRIBES NOT
IMMUNE FROM SUITS ARISING FROM OFF-RESERVATION BUSINESS
ACTIVITY-PADILLA v. PUEBLO OF ACOMA, 107 N.M. 174, 754 P.2d 845
(1988)., 102 Harv. L. Rev. 556, 562 (1988)
627 STATE IMMIGRATION LAWS AND FEDERAL SUPREMACY, 22 Hastings
Const. L.Q. 939, 1018 (1995) HN: 30 (S.Ct.)
628 THE SUPREME COURT'S INDIAN PROBLEM, 59 Hastings L.J. 579, 642+
(2008) HN: 15 (S.Ct.)
629 THE PROPERTY RIGHT IN WATER, 9 Hastings W.-N.W. J. Envtl. L. & Pol'y
1, 28+ (2002) HN: 21 (S.Ct.)
630 TOWARD A THEORY OF INTERTRIBAL AND INTRATRIBAL COMMON
LAW, 43 Hous. L. Rev. 701, 741 (2006) HN: 8 (S.Ct.)
631 TRIBALLY-OWNED BUSINESSES ARE NOT "EMPLOYERS": ECONOMIC
EFFECTS, TRIBAL SOVEREIGNTY, AND NLRB V. SAN MANUEL BAND
OF MISSION INDIANS, 43 Idaho L. Rev. 127, 191+ (2006) HN: 20,23,24
(S.Ct.)
632 BALANCING STATE AND TRIBAL POWER TO TAX IN INDIAN COUN-
TRY, 40 Idaho L. Rev. 623, 656+ (2004) HN: 1,2 (S.Ct.)
633 THE TRIBAL PROPERTY RIGHT TO WILDLIFE CAPITAL (PART I): AP-
PLYING PRINCIPLES OF SOVEREIGNTY TO PROTECT IMPERILED
WILDLIFE POPULATIONS, 37 Idaho L. Rev. 1, 102+ (2000) HN: 20 (S.Ct.)
634 CIVIL RIGHTS IN TRIBAL COURTS: THE INDIAN BILL OF RIGHTS AT
THIRTY YEARS, 34 Idaho L. Rev. 465, 515 (1998) HN: 8 (S.Ct.)
635 SOVEREIGNTY OF ABORIGINAL PEOPLES, 9 Ind. Int'l & Comp. L. Rev. 65,
119+ (1998) HN: 23 (S.Ct.)
636 GREYWATER v. JOSHUA AND TRIBAL JURISDICTION OVER NONMEM-
BER INDIANS, 75 Iowa L. Rev. 685, 711+ (1990) HN: 8,17 (S.Ct.)
637 REGULATORY JURISDICTION OVER NON-INDIAN HAZARDOUS
WASTE IN INDIAN COUNTRY, 72 Iowa L. Rev. 1091, 1116+ (1987) HN: 5,24
(S.Ct.)
638 SOME OBSERVATIONS ON THE USE OF LEGISLATIVE HISTORY IN THE
1981 SUPREME COURT TERM, 68 Iowa L. Rev. 195, 216+ (1983) HN: 23

(S.Ct.)
639 LABOR REGULATION, UNION AVOIDANCE AND ORGANIZED LABOR
RELATIONS STRATEGIES ON TRIBAL LANDS: NEW INDIAN GAMING
STRATEGIES IN THE WAKE OF SAN MANUEL BAND OF INDIANS V.
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, 40 J. Marshall L. Rev. 1259,
1304+ (2007) HN: 5 (S.Ct.)
640 AT&T COMMUNICATIONS OF MARYLAND V. COMPTROLLER OF THE
TREASURY: RESPONDING TO THE CALL FOR JUDICIAL ACTIVISM
AND THE CREATION OF TAX SHELTERS, 5 J. Bus. & Tech. L. 143, 165+
(2010) HN: 30,31 (S.Ct.)
641 OLIPHANT v. SUQUAMISH TRIBE: THE WHOLE IS GREATER THAN THE
SUM OF THE PARTS, 19 J. Contemp. L. 391, 443+ (1993)
642 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW-COMMONWEALTH EDISON CO. v. MONTANA-
THE CONSTITUTIONAL AND PUBLIC POLICY IMPLICATIONS OF
STATE TAXATION OF COAL, 8 J. Corp. L. 202, 218+ (1982) HN: 30,31
(S.Ct.)
643 TAXATION OF NON-INDIAN MINERAL LEASES ON TRIBAL LANDS:
VALIDITY OF BOTH TRIBE AND STATE SEVERANCE TAXES?, 11 J. En-
ergy Nat. Resources & Envtl. L. 127, 141+ (1990) HN: 23,24,34 (S.Ct.)
644 PUTTING THE "SUSTAINABLE" BACK IN SUSTAINABLE DEVELOP-
MENT: RECOGNIZING AND ENFORCING INDIGENOUS PROPERTY
RIGHTS AS A PATHWAY TO GLOBAL ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINAB-
ILITY, 21 J. Envtl. L. & Litig. 157, 205+ (2006) HN: 11 (S.Ct.)
645 INDIAN COUNTRY IN CYBER SPACE: TRIBAL TAX AND REGULATORY
JURISDICTION AND ONLINE BUSINESS, 12 NO. 5 J. Internet L. 3, 3+ (2008)
HN: 1 (S.Ct.)
646 ANCSA AND SOVEREIGNTY LITIGATION, 24 J. Land Resources & Envtl. L.
465, 473 (2004) HN: 2 (S.Ct.)
647 AMERICA'S FIRST NATIONS: THE ORIGINS, HISTORY AND FUTURE OF
AMERICAN INDIAN SOVEREIGNTY, 7 J.L. & Pol'y 347, 410+ (1999) HN:
23,24,34 (S.Ct.)
648 FEDERALISM IN THE ERA OF INTERNATIONAL STANDARDS: FEDER-
AL AND STATE GOVERNMENT REGULATION OF MERCHANT VESSELS
IN THE UNITED STATES (PART I), 29 J. Mar. L. & Com. 335, 390 (1998)
HN: 31 (S.Ct.)
649 "TE PEE" AS IN TAXPAYER: TRIBAL SEVERANCE TAXES-
-CANVASSING THE RESERVATION--DO TRIBES HAVE THE POWER TO
IMPOSE SEVERANCE TAXES ON MINERALS EXTRATED ON NON-IN-
DIAN FEE LANDS WITHIN THE RESERVATION?, 7 J. Min. L. & Pol'y 73,
104+ (1992) HN: 8,24,25 (S.Ct.)
650 BALANCING STATE AND TRIBAL POWER TO TAX IN INDIAN COUN-
TRY, 14-JAN J. Multistate Tax'n 22, 22 (2005) HN: 24 (S.Ct.)

651 U.S. SUPREME COURT UPDATE, 11-AUG J. Multistate Tax'n 41, 41 (2001)
HN: 3 (S.Ct.)
652 THE SUPREME COURT AND INDIAN TAXATION: COMMERCE CLAUSE
AND OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUES, 8 J. Multistate Tax'n 262, 263+
(1999) HN: 1,7,23 (S.Ct.)
653 CAN A SOVEREIGN PROTECT INVESTORS FROM ITSELF? TRIBAL IN-
STITUTIONS TO SPUR RESERVATION INVESTMENT, 8 J. Small & Emer-
ging Bus. L. 173, 224 (2004)
654 TRIBAL V. STATE GOVERNMENT: DRAWING THE LINES, 70-JAN J. Kan.
B.A. 24, 32 (2001)
655 THE CHALLENGES FACING TRIBAL COURTS TODAY, 79 Judicature 142,
146 (1995)
656 PURCHASING THE RIGHT TO GOVERN: WINSTAR AND THE NEED TO
RECONCEPTUALIZE THE LAW OF REGULATORY AGREEMENTS, 88 Ky.
L.J. 245, 281+ (2000) HN: 19,20,21 (S.Ct.)
657 ENVIRONMENTAL COMPLIANCE CONSIDERATIONS FOR DE-
VELOPERS OF INDIAN LANDS, 28 Land & Water L. Rev. 77, 113+ (1993)
658 INDIAN LAW-TRIBAL SOVEREIGNTY-CONGRESS, PLEASE HELP
AGAIN-THE CHEYENNE RIVER SIOUX TRIBE CANNOT REGULATE
HUNTING AND FISHING BECAUSE THE NON-INDIAN INTEREST CON-
TROLS. SOUTH DAKOTA V. BOURLAND, 113 S.CT. 2309 (1993)., 29 Land
& Water L. Rev. 505, 532+ (1993) HN: 5,7,23 (S.Ct.)
659 INDIAN LAW-MINERAL TAXATION-ARE STATE SEVERANCE TAXES
PREEMPTED WHEN IMPOSED ON NON-INDIAN LESSEES EXTRACTING
OIL AND GAS FROM INDIAN RESERVATIONS LAND? COTTON PETRO-
LEUM CORPORATION v. NEW MEXICO, 109 S. CT. 1698 (1989), 25 Land &
Water L. Rev. 435, 445+ (1990) HN: 35 (S.Ct.)
660 THE LIMITS OF STATE ACTIVITY IN THE INTERSTATE WATER MAR-
KET, 21 Land & Water L. Rev. 357, 380 (1986)
661 THE RIGHT TO BE HEARD IN CITY OF SHERRILL V. ONEIDA INDIAN
NATION: EQUITY AND THE SOUND OF SILENCE, 25 Law & Ineq. 227,
252+ (2007) HN: 20,21,22 (S.Ct.)
662 TRIBAL SOVEREIGN INTERESTS BEYOND THE RESERVATION BOR-
DERS, 12 Lewis & Clark L. Rev. 1003, 1045 (2008) HN: 34 (S.Ct.)
663 INTER-TRIBAL AND INTERNATIONAL TREATIES FOR AMERICAN IN-
DIAN ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, 12 Lewis & Clark L. Rev. 1103, 1134
(2008)
664 IMPOSING COMMUNISM, 12 Lewis & Clark L. Rev. 991, 1002+ (2008) HN:
24 (S.Ct.)
665 7 Loyola Journal of Public Interest Law 203, THE PUBLIC DEBT CLAUSE
AND THE SOCIAL SECURITY TRUST FUNDS: ENFORCEMENT MECH-
ANISM OR HISTORICAL PECULIARITY? (2006)

666 SOUTH DAKOTA V. BOURLAND: THE COURT REPLACES THE CAV-
ALRY, 28 Loy. L.A. L. Rev. 675, 697 (1995) HN: 23 (S.Ct.)
667 TAXATION AND DOING BUSINESS IN INDIAN COUNTRY, 60 Me. L. Rev.
1, 95+ (2008) HN: 2,6,24 (S.Ct.)
668 THE CURIOUS CASE OF DISAPPEARING FEDERAL JURISDICTION
OVER FEDERAL ENFORCEMENT OF FEDERAL LAW: A VEHICLE FOR
REASSESSMENT OF THE TRIBAL EXHAUSTION/ABSTENTION DOC-
TRINE, 80 Marq. L. Rev. 531, 545+ (1997) HN: 23 (S.Ct.)
669 LOOKING AGAIN AT TRIBAL JURISDICTION: "UNWARRANTED INTRU-
SIONS ON THEIR PERSONAL LIBERTY', 76 Marq. L. Rev. 401, 438+ (1993)
HN: 14 (S.Ct.)
670 SCIENCE, SOVEREIGNTY, AND THE SACRED TEXT: PALEONTOLOGIC-
AL RESOURCES AND NATIVE AMERICAN RIGHTS, 55 Md. L. Rev. 84,
159 (1996) HN: 8,16 (S.Ct.)
671 CIVIL AND CRIMINAL JURISDICTION OVER MATTERS ARISING IN IN-
DIAN COUNTRY: A ROADMAP FOR IMPROVING INTERACTION
AMONG TRIBAL, STATE AND FEDERAL GOVERNMENTS, 31 McGeorge
L. Rev. 973, 1042+ (2000) HN: 8 (S.Ct.)
672 City airport "fees" under scrutiny (2002) HN: 30,31 (S.Ct.)
673 DOING BUSINESS WITH MICHIGAN INDIAN TRIBES, 76 Mich. B.J. 440,
442 (1997) HN: 22 (S.Ct.)
674 INDIAN RESERVED WATER RIGHTS: THE WINTERS DOCTRINE IN ITS
SOCIAL AND LEGAL CONTEXT, 1880S-1930S. BY JOHN SHURTS. NOR-
MAN: UNIVERSITY OF OKLAHOMA PRESS. 2000. PP. XV, 333. $39.95., 99
Mich. L. Rev. 1473, 1499 (2001)
675 CONTEXT AND LEGITIMACY IN FEDERAL INDIAN LAW Braid Of Feath-
ers: American Indian Law And Contemporary Tribal Life. By Frank Pommer-
sheim. Los Angeles: University of California Press. 1995. pp. x, 267. $30., 94
Mich. L. Rev. 1973, 1992 (1996) HN: 8 (S.Ct.)
676 TAX TRANSITIONS, OPPORTUNISTIC RETROACTIVITY, AND THE BE-
NEFITS OF GOVERNMENT PRECOMMITMENT, 94 Mich. L. Rev. 1129,
1196+ (1996) HN: 20 (S.Ct.)
677 STORIES OF ORIGIN AND CONSTITUTIONAL POSSIBILITIES, 87 Mich. L.
Rev. 2280, 2318 (1989)
678 SCHOLARSHIP, PEDAGOGY, AND FEDERAL INDIAN LAW AMERICAN
INDIAN LAW IN A NUTSHELL. SECOND EDITION. BY WILLIAM C.
CANBY, JR. ST. PAUL: WEST PUBLISHING CO. 1988. PP. XLIII, 336.
$12.95., 87 Mich. L. Rev. 1199, 1215 (1989) HN: 8 (S.Ct.)
679 THE HERMENEUTICS OF INDIAN LAW AMERICAN INDIANS, TIME,
AND THE LAW: NATIVE SOCIETIES IN A MODER N CONSTITUTIONAL
DEMOCRACY. BY CHARLES F. WILKINSON. NEW HAVEN: YALE UNI-
VERSITY PRESS. 1987. PP. XI, 219. $18.50., 85 Mich. L. Rev. 1012, 1024+

(1987) HN: 2 (S.Ct.)
680 TRIBAL SELF-DETERMINATION AND JUDICIAL RESTRAINT: THE
PROBLEM OF LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS WITHIN THE
RESERVATION, 2008 Mich. St. L. Rev 505, 519+ (2008) HN: 8,10,23 (S.Ct.)
681 HOW THE NINTH CIRCUIT OVERRULED A CENTURY OF SUPREME
COURT INDIAN JURISPRUDENCE-AND HAS SO FAR GOTTEN AWAY
WITH IT, 2008 Mich. St. L. Rev 547, 550+ (2008) HN: 23,24,34 (S.Ct.)
682 A JUDICIAL FRAMEWORK FOR APPLYING SUPREME COURT JURIS-
PRUDENCE TO THE STATE INCOME TAXATION OF INDIAN TRADERS,
2007 Mich. St. L. Rev 841, 904+ (2007) HN: 1 (S.Ct.)
683 CONDUCTING EMBRYONIC STEM CELL RESEARCH ON NATIVE
LANDS IN MICHIGAN, 11 Mich. St. U. J. Med. & L. 395, 445+ (2007) HN: 23
(S.Ct.)
684 BEYOND INDIAN LAW: THE REHNQUIST COURT'S PURSUIT OF
STATES' RIGHTS, COLOR-BLIND JUSTICE AND MAINSTREAM VALUES,
86 Minn. L. Rev. 267, 362+ (2001)
685 DOMESTICATING FEDERAL INDIAN LAW, 81 Minn. L. Rev. 31, 95 (1996)
686 CONTRACTING WITH THE UNITED STATES IN ITS ROLE AS REGULAT-
OR: STRIKING A BARGAIN WITH AN EQUITABLE SOVEREIGN OR A
CAPRICIOUS SIREN?, 18 Miss. C. L. Rev. 247, 264+ (1997) HN: 21,23,24
(S.Ct.)
687 THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES APPLIES TO INDIAN
TRIBES, 59 Mont. L. Rev. 51, 80 (1998) HN: 23,34 (S.Ct.)
688 MONTANA TRIBAL COURTS: INFLUENCING THE DEVELOPMENT OF
CONTEMPORARY INDIAN LAW, 52 Mont. L. Rev. 211, 305+ (1991) HN: 24
(S.Ct.)
689 GAMING SPURS INDIAN COUNTRY LAND VENTURES REAL ESTATE
TRANSACTIONS WITH INDIAN TRIBES INVOLVE UNTANGLING SOME
COMPLEX ISSUES OF STATE, TRIBAL, FEDERAL AND INTERNATION-
AL LAW., 1/20/97 Nat'l L.J. B8, col. 2, B8, col. 2 (1997)
690 SUPREME COURT STRIKES TWO MORE BLOWS AGAINST TRIBAL
SELF-DETERMINATION, 16-FALL Nat. Resources & Env't 118, 120+ (2001)
HN: 8 (S.Ct.)
691 CONSERVING ECOSYSTEMS THROUGH THE SECRETARIAL ORDER ON
TRIBAL RIGHTS, 14-WTR Nat. Resources & Env't 162, 165+ (2000) HN: 2
(S.Ct.)
692 REGULATORY JURISDICTION OVER NONMEMBERS' LAND WITHIN IN-
DIAN RESERVATIONS, 7-SPG Nat. Resources & Env't 14, 54+ (1993) HN:
8,24 (S.Ct.)
693 TRIBAL AND STATE TAXATION OF NATURAL RESOURCES ON INDIAN
RESERVATIONS, 7-SPG Nat. Resources & Env't 17, 18+ (1993) HN: 33,35
(S.Ct.)

694 INDIAN WATER RIGHTS AND THE FEDERAL TRUST RESPONSIBILITY,
46 Nat. Resources J. 399, 437 (2006)
695 A PARADIGMATIC, COMPARATIVE, PRIVATE-LAW PERSPECTIVE ON
THE FEDERAL TRUSTEESHIP, 46 Nat. Resources J. 463, 487 (2006) HN: 36
(S.Ct.)
696 REVISITING MERRION V. JICARILLA APACHE TRIBE: ROBERT NORD-
HAUS AND SOVEREIGN INDIAN CONTROL OVER NATURAL RE-
SOURCES ON RESERVATIONS, 43 Nat. Resources J. 223, 284+ (2003) HN:
23,24,25 (S.Ct.)
697 CONTRACTUAL DISCRETION AND THE ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT:
CAN THE BUREAU OF RECLAMATION REALLOCATE FEDERAL
PROJECT WATER FOR ENDANGERED SPECIES IN THE MIDDLE RIO
GRANDE?, 41 Nat. Resources J. 487, 493+ (2001) HN: 21 (S.Ct.)
698 THE BLAZE CONSTRUCTION CASE: AN ANALYSIS OF THE BLAZE
CONSTRUCTION TAX CASES AND THE IMPLICATIONS ON AVOID-
ANCE OF TAXATION IN INDIAN COUNTRY, 39 Nat. Resources J. 845, 848+
(1999) HN: 5 (S.Ct.)
699 THE DETERMINATION OF PROPERTY RIGHTS IN PUBLIC CONTRACTS
AFTER WINSTAR V. UNITED STATES: WHERE HAS THE SUPREME
COURT LEFT US?, 38 Nat. Resources J. 197, 209+ (1998) HN: 19,20,21 (S.Ct.)
700 OIL AND WATER IN THE INDIAN COUNTRY, 37 Nat. Resources J. 457,
484+ (1997) HN: 17,23,24 (S.Ct.)
701 TRIBES v. STATES: ZONING INDIAN RESERVATIONS, 32 Nat. Resources J.
195, 206+ (1992) HN: 24 (S.Ct.)
702 COURT PICKS NEW TEST IN COTTON PETROLEUM, 30 Nat. Resources J.
919, 928 (1990)
703 THE SUPREME COURT AND FEDERAL INDIAN POLICY, 85 Neb. L. Rev.
121, 185+ (2006) HN: 5,8,34 (S.Ct.)
704 WALKING THE STRAIGHT AND NARROW: ANOTHER SQUEEZE ON
TRIBAL CIVIL JURISDICTION OVER NONMEMBERS IN SMITH V.
SALISH KOOTENAI COLLEGE, 378 F.3D 1048 (9TH CIR. 2004), 83 Neb. L.
Rev. 1325, 1344 (2005) HN: 8 (S.Ct.)
705 DOUBLE JEOPARDY AND NONMEMBER INDIANS IN INDIAN COUN-
TRY, 82 Neb. L. Rev. 889, 946 (2004) HN: 8 (S.Ct.)
706 WHERE DOES THE COMMERCE CLAUSE END AND THE TWENTY-
FIRST AMENDMENT BEGIN UNDER BAINBRIDGE V. TURNER?, 39 New
Eng. L. Rev. 111, 161 (2004) HN: 31 (S.Ct.)
707 SECURING ECONOMIC SOVEREIGNTY THROUGH AGREEMENT, 37 New
Eng. L. Rev. 523, 544 (2003) HN: 1 (S.Ct.)
708 CANONS OF CONQUEST: THE SUPREME COURT'S ATTACK ON TRIBAL
SOVEREIGNTY, 37 New Eng. L. Rev. 641, 668 (2003)
709 JOHN V. BAKER & CHILD CUSTODY: A BATTLE BETWEEN PARENTS

AND COURTS, 36 New Eng. L. Rev. 433, 478+ (2002) HN: 23 (S.Ct.)
710 ATKINSON TRADING CO. INC. V. SHIRLEY ET AL, NO. 00-454 (2001) HN:
2,8,24 (S.Ct.)
711 FEDERAL COURTS, STATE POWER, AND INDIAN TRIBES: CONFRONT-
ING THE WELL-PLEADED COMPLAINT RULE, 35 N.M. L. Rev. 1, 36
(2005)
712 COMPACTS, CONFEDERACIES, AND COMITY: INTERTRIBAL EN-
FORCEMENT OF TRIBAL COURT ORDERS, 34 N.M. L. Rev. 297, 338+
(2004) HN: 8 (S.Ct.)
713 ENFORCEMENT OF TRIBAL COURT TAX JUDGMENTS OUTSIDE OF IN-
DIAN COUNTRY: THE WAYS AND MEANS, 34 N.M. L. Rev. 339, 379+
(2004) HN: 5 (S.Ct.)
714 NEW MEXICO TAXES: TAKING ANOTHER LOOK, 32 N.M. L. Rev. 351,
385 (2002) HN: 2 (S.Ct.)
715 THE COLLISION OF TRIBAL NATURAL RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT
AND STATE TAXATION: AN ECONOMIC ANALYSIS, 27 N.M. L. Rev. 387,
420+ (1997) HN: 2,36 (S.Ct.)
716 TAX LAW-TRIBAL TAXATION AND ALLOTTED LANDS: MUSTANG
PRODUCTION COMPANY v. HARRISON, 27 N.M. L. Rev. 455, 472+ (1997)
HN: 1,5,20 (S.Ct.)
717 TREATIES OF CONQUEST: PROPERTY RIGHTS, INDIAN TREATIES, AND
THE TREATY OF GUADALUPE HIDALGO, 26 N.M. L. Rev. 201, 255 (1996)
HN: 21 (S.Ct.)
718 CIVIL PROCEDURE, 21 N.M. L. Rev. 513, 565 (1991) HN: 22 (S.Ct.)
719 LENDER RECOURSE IN INDIAN COUNTRY: A NAVAJO CASE STUDY, 21
N.M. L. Rev. 275, 326+ (1991)
720 OUT OF SIGHT BUT NOT OUT OF MIND: NEW MEXICO'S TAX ON OUT-
OF-STATE SERVICES, 20 N.M. L. Rev. 501, 530 (1990)
721 SOLID WAST REGULATION INDIAN COUNTRY, 21 N.M. L. Rev. 121, 147+
(1990)
722 INDIAN LAW, 18 N.M. L. Rev. 403, 467+ (1988)
723 PORT OF OSWEGO AUTHORITY V. GRANNIS 507661, 2/8/2010 N.Y. L.J.
29, col. 5, 29, col. 5 (2010)
724 COURT OF APPEALS DECISION Court of Appeals CASE Native American
Law County Court Dismissed Petition Without Discretion; Respondent Must Va-
cate Premises 2 No. 1 - Matter of Spota, on behalf of Unkechaug Indian Nation,
app, 2/8/2008 N.Y. L.J. 26, col. 1, 26, col. 1+ (2008) HN: 5,10,11 (S.Ct.)
725 DECISION OF THE DAY U.S. Court of Appeals Criminal Practice: 2004 Con-
sent Decree Did Not Restrict State's Control Over Sex-Offender Registry Doe,
plaintiffs-appellees v. Pataki, defendants-appellants Decided March 8, 200,
3/14/2007 N.Y. L.J. 18, col. 1, 18, col. 1 (2007) HN: 19,21 (S.Ct.)

726 DECISION OF INTEREST SWEDENBURG V. KELLY Southern District,
11/19/2002 N.Y. L.J. 22, col. 6, 22, col. 6 (2002) HN: 31 (S.Ct.)
727 COURT PERMITS DIFFERENTIAL TREATMENT BASED ON NATIVE
AMERICAN SOVEREIGNTY, 11/13/98 N.Y. L.J. 1, col. 1, 1, col. 1 (1998) HN:
20 (S.Ct.)
728 HABITAT CONSERVATION PLANNING: ADDRESSING THE ACHILLES
HEEL OF THE ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT, 6 N.Y.U. Envtl. L.J. 279, 340
(1998) HN: 21 (S.Ct.)
729 A TAX ON ADVERTISING: FIRST AMENDMENT AND COMMERCE
CLAUSE IMPLICATIONS, 63 N.Y.U. L. Rev. 810, 839+ (1988) HN: 29,30,31
(S.Ct.)
730 TAX LAW APPENDIX, 59 N.Y.U. L. Rev. 1915, 1915+ (1984)
731 APPENDIX B: SUMMARIES OF CASES GRANTED CERTIORARI DURING
THE 1992 TERM, 59 N.Y.U. L. Rev. 823, 845+ (1984)
732 BACK TO THE FUTURE: NATIVE AMERICAN SOVEREIGNTY IN THE
21ST CENTURY, 20 N.Y.U. Rev. L. & Soc. Change 217, 302 (1993)
733 UNITED STATES v. WINSTAR: RENEWED GOVERNMENT LIABILITY
ARISING FROM THE SAVINGS AND LOANS CRISIS, 1 N.C. Banking Inst.
366, 386 (1997) HN: 21 (S.Ct.)
734 FEDERAL CRIMINAL LAW AND TRIBAL SELF-DETERMINATION, 84
N.C. L. Rev. 779, 855 (2006) HN: 34 (S.Ct.)
735 SOUTH CAROLINA LOSES A BATTLE IN THE HAZARDOUS WASTE
WARS: USING THE DORMANT COMMERCE CLAUSE TO INVALIDATE
SOUTH CAROLINA'S HAZARDOUS WASTE LAWS IN ENVIRONMENTAL
TECHNOLOGY COUNCIL v. SIERRA CLUB, 76 N.C. L. Rev. 650, 686+
(1998) HN: 33 (S.Ct.)
736 EXHAUSTION OF TRIBAL REMEDIES: EXTOLLING TRIBAL SOVER-
EIGNTY WHILE EXPANDING FEDERAL JURISDICTION, 73 N.C. L. Rev.
1089, 1157+ (1995) HN: 23,24 (S.Ct.)
737 ONE SMALL STEP FOR COURTS, ONE GIANT LEAP FOR GROUP
RIGHTS: ACCOMMODATING THE ASSOCIATIONAL ROLE OF "INTIM-
ATE" GOVERNMENT ENTITIES, 71 N.C. L. Rev. 595, 648 (1993)
738 INDIAN HUNTING AND FISHING RIGHTS: THE ROLE OF TRIBAL SOV-
EREIGNTY AND PREEMPTION, 62 N.C. L. Rev. 743, 793+ (1984) HN: 5,8,23
(S.Ct.)
739 OVERCOMING LEGAL HURDLES IN THE WAR AGAINST METH IN INDI-
AN COUNTRY, 82 N.D. L. Rev. 1151, 1164 (2006) HN: 5 (S.Ct.)
740 THE IRON COLD OF THE MARSHALL TRILOGY, 82 N.D. L. Rev. 627, 696
(2006) HN: 7 (S.Ct.)
741 TEACHING INDIAN LAW IN AN ANTI-TRIBAL ERA, 82 N.D. L. Rev. 777,
794+ (2006)

742 TEACHING DECOLONIZATION: REACQUISITION OF INDIAN LANDS
WITHIN AND WITHOUT THE BOX-AN ESSAY, 82 N.D. L. Rev. 811, 848
(2006) HN: 24 (S.Ct.)
743 AN INTERDISCIPLINARY APPROACH TO AMERICAN INDIAN ECONOM-
IC DEVELOPMENT, 80 N.D. L. Rev. 597, 655+ (2004) HN: 1,2,8 (S.Ct.)
744 LABOR RELATIONS AND TRIBAL SELF-GOVERNANCE, 80 N.D. L. Rev.
691, 730+ (2004) HN: 2 (S.Ct.)
745 IN PURSUIT OF TRIBAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AS A SUBSTITUTE
FOR RESERVATION TAX REVENUE, 80 N.D. L. Rev. 759, 807+ (2004) HN:
7,8 (S.Ct.)
746 CROSS-JURISDICTIONAL RECOGNITION AND ENFORCEMENT OF
JUDGMENTS: A TRIBAL COURT PERSPECTIVE, 76 N.D. L. Rev. 311, 363
(2000)
747 INDIAN LAND-USE ZONING JURISDICTION: AN ARGUMENT IN FAVOR
OF TRIBAL JURISDICTION OVER NON-MEMBER FEE LANDS WITHIN
RESERVATION BOUNDARIES, 73 N.D. L. Rev. 721, 740+ (1997) HN:
17,24,25 (S.Ct.)
748 EMPLOYMENT IN INDIAN COUNTRY: CONSIDERATIONS RESPECTING
TRIBAL REGULATION OF THE EMPLOYER-EMPLOYEE RELATIONSHIP,
72 N.D. L. Rev. 267, 297+ (1996) HN: 5 (S.Ct.)
749 THE UNSEEMLY NATURE OF RESERVATION DIMINISHMENT BY JUDI-
CIAL, AS OPPOSED TO LEGISLATIVE, FIAT AND THE IRONIC ROLE OF
THE INDIAN CIVIL RIGHTS ACT IN LIMITING BOTH, 71 N.D. L. Rev. 393,
413+ (1995)
750 HEEDING THE DEMANDS OF JUSTICE: JUSTICE BLACKMUN'S INDIAN
LAW OPINIONS, 71 N.D. L. Rev. 41, 143 (1995)
751 DIMINSHMENT OF INDIAN RESERVATIONS: LEGISLATIVE OR JUDI-
CIAL FIAT?, 71 N.D. L. Rev. 415, 432 (1995)
752 QUESTIONS POSED, 71 N.D. L. Rev. 589, 600+ (1995) HN: 6,24 (S.Ct.)
753 FEDERAL COURT REVIEW OF TRIBAL ACTIVITY UNDER THE INDIAN
CIVIL RIGHTS ACT, 68 N.D. L. Rev. 657, 674 (1992)
754 WHAT COULD AMERICAN INDIAN LAW POSSIBLY HAVE TO DO WITH
THE ISSUE OF GAY-MARRIAGE RECOGNITION?: DEFINITIONAL JURIS-
PRUDENCE, EQUAL PROTECTION AND FULL FAITH AND CREDIT, 24 N.
Ill. U. L. Rev. 563, 587 (2004) HN: 20 (S.Ct.)
755 WHO'S SELLING THE NEXT ROUND: WINES, STATE LINES, THE
TWENTY-FIRST AMENDMENT AND THE COMMERCE CLAUSE, 33 N.
Ky. L. Rev. 1, 59+ (2006) HN: 31,32 (S.Ct.)
756 SOVEREIGNTY AND PROPERTY, 86 Nw. U. L. Rev. 1, 56+ (1991) HN: 8
(S.Ct.)
757 POLYPHONIC STARE DECISIS: LISTENING TO NON-ARTICLE III ACT-
ORS, 83 Notre Dame L. Rev. 1303, 1337 (2008) HN: 31 (S.Ct.)

758 NEW WINE IN OLD WINESKINS: ANALYZING STATE DIRECT-SHIP-
MENT LAWS IN THE CONTEXT OF FEDERALISM, THE DORMANT COM-
MERCE CLAUSE, AND THE TWENTY-FIRST AMENDMENT, 79 Notre
Dame L. Rev. 1563, 1611+ (2004) HN: 31 (S.Ct.)
759 HOW MUCH DIVERSITY IS THE UNITED STATES REALLY WILLING TO
ACCEPT?, 20 Ohio N.U. L. Rev. 957, 979+ (1994) HN: 1,6,23 (S.Ct.)
760 BEYOND REPARATIONS: AN AMERICAN INDIAN THEORY OF JUSTICE,
66 Ohio St. L.J. 1, 104 (2005)
761 STATE COURT RECOGNITION OF TRIBAL COURT JUDGMENTS: SE-
CURING THE BLESSINGS OF CIVILIZATION, 23 Okla. City U. L. Rev. 353,
378 (1998) HN: 23 (S.Ct.)
762 FEDERAL REVIEW OF TRIBAL COURT DECISIONS: IN SEARCH OF A
STANDARD OR A SOLUTION FOR THE PROBLEM OF TRIBAL COURT
REVIEW BY THE FEDERAL COURTS, 23 Okla. City U. L. Rev. 459, 500
(1998)
763 OKLAHOMA'S TRIBAL COURTS: A PROLOGUE, THE FIRST FIFTEEN
YEARS OF THE MODERAN ERA, AND A GLIMPSE AT THE ROAD
AHEAD, 19 Okla. City U. L. Rev. 5, 80 (1994) HN: 23 (S.Ct.)
764 OKLAHOMA'S CIVIL-ADJUDICATORY JURISDICTION OVER INDIAN
ACTIVITIES IN INDIAN COUNTRY: A CRITICAL COMMENTARY ON
LEWIS V. SAC & FOX TRIBE HOUSING AUTHORITY, 19 Okla. City U. L.
Rev. 81, 140+ (1994) HN: 23,24 (S.Ct.)
765 CONTEMPORARY TENSIONS IN CONSTITUTIONAL INDIAN LAW, 12
Okla. City U. L. Rev. 469, 473+ (1987) HN: 1,3,24 (S.Ct.)
766 INDIANS: MODERN TRIBAL JURISDICTION OVER NON-INDIAN
PARTIES: THE SUPREME COURT TAKES ANOTHER BITE OUT OF TRI-
BAL SOVEREIGNTY IN STRATE V. A-1 CONTRACTORS, 51 Okla. L. Rev.
727, 746 (1998)
767 TAXATION: MERRION v. JICARILLE APACHE TRIBE: WINE OR VINEG-
AR FOR OKLAHOMA TRIBES?, 37 Okla. L. Rev. 369, 371+ (1984) HN:
2,7,20 (S.Ct.)
768 FEDERAL LABOR LAW, INDIAN SOVEREIGNTY, AND THE CANONS OF
CONSTRUCTION, 86 Or. L. Rev. 413, 531+ (2007) HN: 23,24,27 (S.Ct.)
769 A NARRATIVE OF SOVEREIGNTY: ILLUMINATING THE PARADOX OF
THE DOMESTIC DEPENDENT NATION, 83 Or. L. Rev. 1109, 1202+ (2004)
HN: 2,5,7 (S.Ct.)
770 TRIBAL SOVEREIGNTY: THEM AND US, 82 Or. L. Rev. 75, 117 (2003)
771 TRIBES AS RICH NATIONS, 79 Or. L. Rev. 893, 980+ (2000) HN: 17,24,36
(S.Ct.)
772 STATE TAXATION OF NON-INDIANS WHOM DO BUSINESS WITH INDI-
AN TRIBES: WHY SEVERAL RECENT NINTH CIRCUIT HOLDINGS REE-
MPHASIZE THE NEED FOR INDIAN TRIBES TO ENTER INTO TAXATION

COMPACTS WITH THEIR RESPECTIVE STATE, 78 Or. L. Rev. 501, 550+
(1999) HN: 7,8,24 (S.Ct.)
773 SPEAKING WITH FORKED TONGUES: INDIAN TREATIES, SALMON,
AND THE ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT, 70 Or. L. Rev. 543, 584 (1991)
774 INDIAN COUNTRY JURISDICTION AND THE ASSIMILATIVE CRIMES
ACT, 69 Or. L. Rev. 269, 294 (1990) HN: 20 (S.Ct.)
775 NATIVE AMERICANS AND HOMELAND SECURITY: FAILURE OF THE
HOMELAND SECURITY ACT TO RECOGNIZE TRIBAL SOVEREIGNTY,
108 Penn St. L. Rev. 375, 394 (2003) HN: 20 (S.Ct.)
776 CONTRACTS WRITTEN IN STONE: AN EXAMINATION OF UNITED
STATES V. WINSTAR CORP., 25 Pepp. L. Rev. 567, 584+ (1997) HN:
18,20,21 (S.Ct.)
777 DOUBLE TAXATION IN INDIAN COUNTRY: UNPACKING THE PROB-
LEM AND ANALYZING THE ROLE OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IN
PROTECTING TRIBAL GOVERNMENTAL REVENUES, 2 Pitt. Tax. Rev. 93,
150+ (2005) HN: 17,23,24 (S.Ct.)
778 "WINSTAR WARS"-REVENGE OF THE THRIFT: A VIABLE MODEL TO
RIGHT A DECADE OF WRONGS, 36 Pub. Cont. L.J. 361, 384+ (2007) HN: 20
(S.Ct.)
779 LESSONS FROM THE DAMAGES DECISIONS FOLLOWING UNITED
STATES v. WINSTAR CORP., 32 Pub. Cont. L.J. 1, 38 (2002) HN: 21 (S.Ct.)
780 DOES MOBIL OIL WEAKEN THE SOVEREIGN DEFENSES OF GOVERN-
MENT BREACH-OF-CONTRACT CLAIMS? AN ANALYSIS OF THE UN-
MISTAKABILITY DOCTRINE AND THE SOVEREIGN ACTS DOCTRINE,
31 Pub. Cont. L.J. 559, 578 (2002) HN: 21 (S.Ct.)
781 CONOCO INC. V. UNITED STATES: SOVEREIGN AUTHORITY UNDER-
MINED BY CONTRACTUAL OBLIGATIONS ON THE OUTER CONTIN-
ENTAL SHELF, 27 Pub. Cont. L.J. 755, 788+ (1998) HN: 20,21,22 (S.Ct.)
782 1997 YEAR IN REVIEW: AN ANALYSIS OF THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT'S
GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS DECISIONS, 27 Pub. Cont. L.J. 495, 553
(1998) HN: 21 (S.Ct.)
783 ASSEMBLING WINSTAR: TRIUMPH OF THE IDEAL OF CONGRUNCE IN
GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS LAW?, 26 Pub. Cont. L.J. 481, 500+ (1997)
HN: 20,21 (S.Ct.)
784 THIS LAND IS OUR LAND, OR COEUR D'ALENE TRIBE OF IDAHO V.
STATE OF IDAHO, 19 Pub. Land & Resources L. Rev. 113, 129 (1998)
785 CULTURE CLASH? THE MILLER & MODIGLIANI PROPOSITIONS MEET
THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS, 22 Rev. Litig. 319,
354 (2003) HN: 21 (S.Ct.)
786 THE FOURTH OPTION: MODERN SELF-DETERMINATION OF PEOPLES
AND THE POSSIBILITIES OF U.S. FEDERALISM, 49 Rev. Der. P.R. 163,
217+ (2010) HN: 20,21 (S.Ct.)

787 ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY AND STATE CONSTITUTIONS: THE POTEN-
TIAL ROLE OF SUBSTANTIVE GUIDANCE, 27 Rutgers L.J. 863, 925 (1996)
788 TRIBAL IMMUNITY FROM PROCESS: LIMITING THE GOVERNMENT'S
POWER TO ENFORCE SEARCH WARRANTS AND SUBPOENAS ON
AMERICAN INDIAN LAND, 56 Rutgers L. Rev. 271, 304 (2003)
789 UNITED STATES v. WINSTAR CORPORATION: IMPLICATIONS FOR THE
REGULATED INDUSTRIES, 16 St. Louis U. Pub. L. Rev. 477, 497+ (1997)
HN: 21 (S.Ct.)
790 WHAT CONGRESS GIVES, CONGRESS TAKES AWAY: TRIBAL SOVER-
EIGN IMMUNITY AND THE THREAT OF AGROTERRORISM, 19 SAN-
JALR 137, 164+ (2010)
791 HAZARDOUS & SOLID WASTE DUMPING GROUNDS UNDER RCRA'S IN-
DIAN LAW LOOPHOLE, 30 Santa Clara L. Rev. 1043, 1079+ (1990) HN: 23
(S.Ct.)
792 THE MARKET PARTICIPANT DOCTRINE AND THE CLEAR STATEMENT
RULE, 29 Seattle U. L. Rev. 543, 580 (2006) HN: 31 (S.Ct.)
793 THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT AND INDIGENOUS PEOPLES:
STILL A LONG WAY TO GO TOWARD A THERAPEUTIC ROLE, 24 Seattle
U. L. Rev. 229, 235 (2000)
794 PHYSICIAN-ASSISTED SUICIDE IN THE DARK WARD: THE INTERSEC-
TION OF THE THIRTEENTH AMENDMENT AND HEALTH CARE TREAT-
MENTS HAVING DISPROPORTIONATE IMPACTS ON DISFAVORED
GROUPS, 28 Seton Hall L. Rev. 774, 896+ (1998)
795 GILBERT V. FLANDREAU SANTEE SIOUX TRIBE: THE SOUTH DAKOTA
SUPREME COURT ASSUMES JURISDICTION, OVERLOOKS FEDERAL IN-
DIAN LAW, AND MISAPPLIES CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLES TO A
TRIBAL NATION, 54 S.D. L. Rev. 333, 364 (2009) HN: 12 (S.Ct.)
796 TRIBAL SELF-DETERMINATION IN THE AGE OF SCARCITY, 54 S.D. L.
Rev. 398, 418 (2009)
797 NEGOTIATING MEANINGFUL CONCESSIONS FROM STATES IN GAM-
ING COMPACTS TO FURTHER TRIBAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT:
SATISFYING THE "ECONOMIC BENEFITS" TEST, 54 S.D. L. Rev. 419,
447+ (2009)
798 MORE QUESTIONS THAN ANSWERS: PLAINS COMMERCE BANK V.
LONG FAMILY LAND AND CATTLE COMPANY, INC. AND THE U.S. SU-
PREME COURT'S FAILURE TO DEFINE THE EXTENT OF TRIBAL CIVIL
AUTHORITY OVER NONMEMBERS ON NON-INDIAN LAND, 54 S.D. L.
Rev. 460, 492+ (2009) HN: 3,8,24 (S.Ct.)
799 ATKINSON TRADING COMPANY V. SHIRLEY: A TAXING DECISION ON
TRIBAL SOVEREIGN POWER, 47 S.D. L. Rev. 134, 156+ (2002) HN: 1,23,24
(S.Ct.)
800 THE APPLICABILITY OF FEDERAL EMPLOYMENT LAW TO INDIAN

TRIBES, 47 S.D. L. Rev. 631, 657+ (2002) HN: 2 (S.Ct.)
801 INDIAN LANDS AS CRITICAL HABITAT FOR INDIAN NATIONS AND
ENDANGERED SPECIES: TRIBAL SURVIVAL AND SOVEREIGNTY
COME FIRST, 43 S.D. L. Rev. 381, 437 (1998) HN: 2 (S.Ct.)
802 PUBLICITY RIGHTS AND THE CONFLICT OF LAWS: TRIBAL COURT
JURISDICTION IN THE CRAZY HORSE CASE, 41 S.D. L. Rev. 1, 44+ (1996)
HN: 23 (S.Ct.)
803 JURASSIC FARCE: A CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF THE GOVERNMENT'S
SEIZURE OF "SUE," A SIXTY-FIVE-MILLION-YEAR-OLD TYRANNO-
SAURUS REX FOSSIL, 39 S.D. L. Rev. 478, 528+ (1994) HN: 8 (S.Ct.)
804 TOWARD A TRUER SENSE OF SOVEREIGNTY: FIDUCIARY DUTY IN IN-
DIAN CORPORATIONS, 39 S.D. L. Rev. 49, 92+ (1994) HN: 20,21 (S.Ct.)
805 RED FOX v. HETTICH: DOES SOUTH DAKOTA'S COMITY STATUTE
FOSTER UNWARRANTED STATE COURT INTRUSION INTO TRIBAL
JURISDICTIONAL AUTHORITY OVER CIVIL DISPUTES?, 38 S.D. L. Rev.
706, 738 (1993) HN: 23 (S.Ct.)
806 TRIBAL-STATE RELATIONS: HOPE FOR THE FUTURE?, 36 S.D. L. Rev.
239, 254+ (1991) HN: 23,24 (S.Ct.)
807 TRIBAL-STATE DISPUTE RESOLUTION: RECENT ATTEMPTS, 36 S.D. L.
Rev. 277, 298 (1991)
808 BRENDALE v. YAKIMA NATION: A DIVIDED SUPREME COURT CAN-
NOT AGREE OVER WHO MAY ZONE NONMEMBER FEE LANDS WITHIN
THE RESERVATION, 36 S.D. L. Rev. 329, 357+ (1991) HN: 10 (S.Ct.)
809 ROSEBUD v. SOUTH DAKOTA: HOW DOES TRIBAL SOVEREIGNTY AF-
FECT THE DETERMINATION OF STATE JURISDICTION ON RESERVA-
TION HIGHWAYS?, 36 S.D. L. Rev. 400, 418 (1991) HN: 23 (S.Ct.)
810 OF SOVEREIGNTY AND CONTRACT: DAMAGES FOR BREACH OF CON-
TRACT BY GOVERNMENT, 8 S. Cal. Interdisc. L.J. 467, 537+ (1999) HN:
19,21 (S.Ct.)
811 NATIVE AMERICAN SOVEREIGNTY TAKES A BACK SEAT TO THE "PIG
IN THE PARLOR:" THE REDEFINING OF TRIBAL SOVEREIGNTY IN
TRADITIONAL PROPERTY LAW TERMS, 19 S. Ill. U. L.J. 593, 631+ (1995)
HN: 2,5,8 (S.Ct.)
812 A NEW LIMITATION ON INDIAN TRIBAL SOVEREIGNTY: NO CRIMIN-
AL JURISDICTION OVER NONMEMBER INDIANS DURO v. REINA, 110 S.
CT. 2053 (1990), 15 S. Ill. U. L.J. 623, 643 (1991)
813 STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION: KEEPING A RESPECTFUL EYE ON CON-
GRESS, 53 SMU L. Rev. 49, 80 (2000) HN: 21 (S.Ct.)
814 WHEN YOU WISH UPON WINSTAR: CONTRACT ANALYSIS AND THE
FUTURE OF REGULATORY ACTION, 42 St. Louis U. L.J. 409, 449+ (1998)
HN: 19,20,21 (S.Ct.)
815 MAKING SENSE OUT OF NEVADA V. HICKS: A REINTERPRETATION, 14

St. Thomas L. Rev. 347, 356+ (2001) HN: 2,9,24 (S.Ct.)
816 PROTECTING THE SACRED SITES OF INDIGENOUS PEOPLE IN U.S.
COURTS: RECONCILING NATIVE AMERICAN RELIGION AND THE
RIGHT TO EXCLUDE, 13 St. Thomas L. Rev. 239, 239+ (2000)
817 MODERN TRIBAL GOVERNMENT: SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC REALITIES
AND OPPORTUNITIES, 7 St. Thomas L. Rev. 479, 491 (1995)
818 EQUAL STANDING WITH STATES: TRIBAL SOVEREIGNTY AND
STANDING AFTER MASSACHUSETTS V. EPA, 29 Stan. Envtl. L.J. 130, 180
(2010)
819 UNDAMMING GLEN CANYON: LUNACY, RATIONALITY, OR PROPH-
ECY?, 19 Stan. Envtl. L.J. 121, 207 (2000)
820 IMPROVING THE LEGISLATIVE PROCESS IN INDIAN COUNTRY
THROUGH USE OF TRIBAL LEGISLATIVE FORA, 12 Stan. L. & Pol'y Rev.
267, 269 (2001)
821 ENDING OUR FOREBEARERS' FORBEARANCES: FIRREA AND SUPER-
VISORY GOODWILL, 2 Stan. L. & Pol'y Rev. 102, 115 (1990) HN: 21 (S.Ct.)
822 GOODWILL AND GOVERNMENT PROMISES, 2 Stan. L. & Pol'y Rev. 117,
123 (1990) HN: 21 (S.Ct.)
823 DISTRIBUTING SOVEREIGNTY: INDIAN NATIONS AND EQUALITY OF
PEOPLES, 45 Stan. L. Rev. 1311, 1367 (1993)
824 TRIBAL SOVEREIGNTY AND CONGRESSIONAL DOMINION: RIGHTS-
OF-WAY FOR GAS PIPELINES ON INDIAN RESERVATIONS, 38 Stan. L.
Rev. 195, 225 (1985)
825 INDIAN AFFAIRS - TRIBAL REGULATORY AUTHORITY - Tribes Lack
Regulatory Authority Over Non-Indian Conduct on Taken Lands Within Reserva-
tions, South Dakota v. Bourland, 113 S. Ct. 2309 (1993)., 18 Suffolk Transnat'l
L. Rev. 405, 416 (1995) HN: 23 (S.Ct.)
826 THE IMPACT OF MAKING RIGHTS INALIENABLE: MERRION v. JI-
CARILLA APACHE TRIBE, TEXACO, INC. v. SHORT, FIDELITY FEDERAL
SAVINGS & LOAN ASS'N v. DE LA CUESTA, AND RIDGWAY v. RIDG-
WAY, 2 Sup. Ct. Econ. Rev. 1, 1+ (1983) HN: 24,25,36 (S.Ct.)
827 A TALE OF TWO TAXES-PREEMPTION ON THE RESERVATION: COT-
TON PETROLEUM CORP. v. MEXICO, 43 Tax Law. 359, 360+ (1990) HN: 31
(S.Ct.)
828 FISCAL FEDERALISM: WHO CONTROLS THE STATES PURSE STRINGS?,
63 Temp. L. Rev. 251, 310 (1990) HN: 1 (S.Ct.)
829 INDIAN LAW-INDIAN TAXATION OF NON-INDIAN MINERAL LESSEES,
50 Tenn. L. Rev. 403, 407+ (1983) HN: 23,24,34 (S.Ct.)
830 THE DIALOGIC OF FEDERALISM IN FEDERAL INDIAN LAW AND THE
REHNQUIST COURT: THE NEED FOR COHERENCE AND INTEGRATION,
8 Tex. F. on C.L. & C.R. 1, 49+ (2003) HN: 5,8 (S.Ct.)

831 THE FEDERAL-STATE CONFLICT OF LAWS: "ACTUAL" CONFLICTS, 70
Tex. L. Rev. 1743, 1798 (1992)
832 INSURING INDIAN COUNTRY The Intersection of Tort, Insurance, and Feder-
al Indian Law, 35-FALL Brief 32, 35 (2005)
833 SHARING THE BURDEN: ALLOCATING THE RISK OF CERCLA CLEAN-
UP COSTS, 7 Envtl. Law. 477, 553 (2001) HN: 18 (S.Ct.)
834 REVIVING LOCAL TRIBAL CONTROL IN INDIAN COUNTRY, 53-APR
Fed. Law. 38, 44 (2006)
835 THIRTY YEARS OF FEDERAL INDIAN LAW, 52-APR Fed. Law. 28, 31+
(2005) HN: 24 (S.Ct.)
836 CIVIL RIGHTS AND TRIBAL EMPLOYMENT, 47 Fed. Law. 34, 34 (2000)
HN: 10,11 (S.Ct.)
837 TAX ISSUES IN INDIAN COUNTRY: A GUIDE FOR PRACTITIONERS, 106
J. Tax'n 296, 305+ (2007) HN: 8 (S.Ct.)
838 TRIBAL VALUES OF TAXATION WITHIN THE TRIBALIST ECONOMIC
THEORY, 18-FALL Kan. J.L. & Pub. Pol'y 1, 23+ (2008) HN: 23 (S.Ct.)
839 THE ORIGINS OF EPA'S INDIAN PROGRAM, 15-WTR Kan. J.L. & Pub. Pol'y
191, 294+ (2006) HN: 5,8 (S.Ct.)
840 CRIMINAL JURISDICTION, TRIBAL COURTS AND PUBLIC DEFENDERS,
13-FALL Kan. J.L. & Pub. Pol'y 139, 147 (2003) HN: 8 (S.Ct.)
841 TRIBAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT: WHAT CHALLENGES LIE AHEAD
FOR TRIBAL NATIONS AS THEY CONTINUE TO STRIVE FOR ECONOM-
IC DIVERSITY?, 11-WTR Kan. J.L. & Pub. Pol'y 441, 467+ (2002)
842 BRIEF FOR THE APPELLANT, 9-SUM Kan. J.L. & Pub. Pol'y 852, 872 (2000)
843 OF COLD STEEL AND BLUEPRINTS: MUSINGS OF AN OLD COUNTRY
LAWYER ON CRIME, JURISPRUDENCE, AND THE TRIBAL ATTORNEY'S
ROLE IN DEVELOPING TRIBAL SOVEREIGNTY, 7-WTR Kan. J.L. & Pub.
Pol'y 31, 53 (1997)
844 SAN MANUEL INDIAN BINGO AND CASINO: CENTRALLY LOCATED IN
THE BROAD PERSPECTIVE OF INDIAN LAW, 21 Lab. Law. 157, 181 (2005)
HN: 23 (S.Ct.)
845 UNION'S GAMBLE PAYS OFF: IN SAN MANUEL INDIAN BINGO &
CASINO, THE NLRB BREAKS THE NATION'S PROMISE AND REVERSES
DECADES-OLD PRECEDENT TO ASSERT JURISDICTION OVER TRIBAL
ENTERPRISES ON INDIAN RESERVATIONS, 21 Lab. Law. 81, 108+ (2005)
HN: 23 (S.Ct.)
846 THE SUPREME COURT AND STATE TAXATION: 2000-2001 THE COURT
REVISITS ITS LONG-STANDING RULES, 7 St. & Loc. Tax Law. 73, 80+
(2002) HN: 2,3,10 (S.Ct.)
847 INDIAN WINTERS WATER RIGHTS ADMINISTRATION: AVERTING NEW
WAR, 11 Pub. Land L. Rev. 53, 80+ (1990)

848 REGULATORY JURISDICTION ON INDIAN RESERVATIONS IN
MONTANA, 5 Pub. Land L. Rev. 147, 170+ (1984) HN: 5 (S.Ct.)
849 APPLICATION OF FEDERAL AND STATE LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT
LAWS TO INDIAN TRIBAL EMPLOYERS, 25 U. Mem. L. Rev. 1365, 1399+
(1995) HN: 5 (S.Ct.)
850 THE SUPREME COURT REPORT 2005-06, 38 Urb. Law. 737, 857 (2006)
851 JURISDICTION TO REGULATE LAND USES IN INDIAN COUNTRY: BA-
SIC CONCEPTS AND RECENT DEVELOPMENTS, 33 Urb. Law. 765, 780+
(2001) HN: 10,11 (S.Ct.)
852 DIVERGENT BUT CO-EXISTENT LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND TRIBAL
GOVERNMENTS UNDER THE SAME CONSTITUTION, 31 Urb. Law. 47,
79+ (1999) HN: 1,5,28 (S.Ct.)
853 A COMPREHENSIVE REVIEW OF 1997-98 U.S. SUPREME COURT CASE
AND IMPORTANT LEGISLATION AFFECTING STATE AND LOCAL GOV-
ERNMENT, 30 Urb. Law. 785, 923+ (1998) HN: 3,20 (S.Ct.)
854 STRENGTHENING AUTONOMY BY WAIVING SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY:
WHY INDIAN TRIBES SHOULD BE "FOREIGN" UNDER THE FOREIGN
SOVEREIGN IMMUNITIES ACT, 14 T.M. Cooley L. Rev. 653, 683 (1997)
855 TRIBAL AFFILIATION BASED EMPLOYMENT PREFERENCES: IS THIS
AN ALLOWABLE PRACTICE UNDER TITLE VII'S INDIAN PREFERENCE
PROVISIONS?, 20 T. Marshall L. Rev. 291, 317+ (1995)
856 ANCSA: SOVEREIGNTY AND A JUST SETTLEMENT OF LAND CLAIMS
OR AN ACT OF DECEPTION, 15 Touro L. Rev. 479, 495 (1999) HN: 5 (S.Ct.)
857 SUSTAINABLE NATURAL RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT, LEGAL DIS-
PUTE, AND INDIGENOUS PEOPLES: PROBLEM-SOLVING ACROSS CUL-
TURES, 11 Tul. Envtl. L.J. 33, 58 (1997)
858 THE GRAND EXPERIMENT: EVALUATING INDIAN LAW IN THE "NEW
WORLD", 5 Tulsa J. Comp. & Int'l L. 299, 334 (1998) HN: 5,8 (S.Ct.)
859 THE COURT'S USE OF THE IMPLICIT DIVESTITURE DOCTRINE TO IM-
PLEMENT ITS IMPERFECT NOTION OF FEDERALISM IN INDIAN COUN-
TRY, 36 Tulsa L.J. 267, 304+ (2000) HN: 1,5,20 (S.Ct.)
860 DECONTEXTUALIZING FEDERAL INDIAN LAW: THE SUPREME
COURT'S 1997-98 TERM, 34 Tulsa L.J. 329, 346 (1999) HN: 24 (S.Ct.)
861 HAYDEN-CARTWRIGHT: A READY REMEDY FOR OKLAHOMA'S INDI-
AN FUEL TAX WOES, 32 Tulsa L.J. 139, 161 (1996) HN: 20 (S.Ct.)
862 MINERAL DEVELOPMENT IN INDIAN COUNTRY: THE EVOLUTION OF
TRIBAL CONTROL OVER MINERAL RESOURCES, 29 Tulsa L.J. 541, 608+
(1994) HN: 24,25,36 (S.Ct.)
863 TIGHTENING THE NOOSE ON TRIBAL CRIMINAL JURISDICTION: DURO
v. REINA, 27 Tulsa L.J. 225, 245+ (1991) HN: 8,16 (S.Ct.)
864 CREATIVE CIVIL REMEDIES AGAINST NON-INDIAN OFFENDERS IN IN-

DIAN COUNTRY, 44 Tulsa L. Rev. 427, 446 (2008)
865 PULLING THE "PLENARY AUTHORITY" CARD: THE UNITED STATES'
"GET OUT OF JAIL FREE CARD" IN MEMBERSHIP DISAGREEMENTS
WITH INDIAN TRIBES, 43 Tulsa L. Rev. 119, 148 (2007) HN: 24 (S.Ct.)
866 THE PHILOSOPHY OF COLONIZATION UNDERLYING TAXATION IM-
POSED UPON TRIBAL NATIONS WITHIN THE UNITED STATES, 43 Tulsa
L. Rev. 43, 72+ (2007) HN: 17,24,25 (S.Ct.)
867 THE RACIAL DISCOURSE OF FEDERAL INDIAN LAW, 42 Tulsa L. Rev.
103, 123 (2006)
868 SECTION 1813 OF THE ENERGY POLICY ACT OF 2005: IMPLICATIONS
FOR TRIBAL SOVEREIGNTY AND SELF-SUFFICIENCY, 42 Tulsa L. Rev.
75, 101+ (2006)
869 BY EMINENT DOMAIN OR SOME OTHER NAME: A TRIBAL PERSPECT-
IVE ON TAKING LAND, 41 Tulsa L. Rev. 51, 77+ (2005)
870 TAXATION OF INDIANS: AN ANALYSIS AND COMPARISON OF NEW
MEXICO AND OKLAHOMA STATE TAX LAWS, 41 Tulsa L. Rev. 91, 116
(2005) HN: 3 (S.Ct.)
871 FEDERAL INDIAN LAW CASES IN THE SUPREME COURT'S 2004-2005
TERM, 41 Tulsa L. Rev. 341, 364 (2005)
872 UNITED STATES V. LARA AS A STORY OF NATIVE AGENCY, 40 Tulsa L.
Rev. 5, 24 (2004)
873 FIGHTING THE LONE WOLF MENTALITY: TWENTY-FIRST CENTURY
REFLECTIONS ON THE PARADOXICAL STATE OF AMERICAN INDIAN
LAW, 38 Tulsa L. Rev. 113, 145 (2002)
874 DOCTRINE, CONTEXT, INSTITUTIONAL RELATIONSHIPS, AND COM-
MENTARY: THE MALAISE OF FEDERAL INDIAN LAW THROUGH THE
LENS OF LONE WOLF, 38 Tulsa L. Rev. 5, 36+ (2002) HN: 1,8 (S.Ct.)
875 THE RECOGNITION AND EVOLUTION OF TRIBAL SOVEREIGN IM-
MUNITY UNDER FEDERAL LAW: LEGAL, HISTORICAL, AND NORMAT-
IVE REFLECTIONS ON A FUNDAMENTAL ASPECT OF AMERICAN INDI-
AN SOVEREIGNTY, 37 Tulsa L. Rev. 661, 776 (2002)
876 TRIBAL CIVIL JURISDICTION OVER NONMEMBERS, 37 Tulsa L. Rev. 573,
602+ (2001) HN: 2,8,24 (S.Ct.)
877 FEDERAL COURTS, TRIBAL COURTS, AND COMITY: DEVELOPING TRI-
BAL JUDICIARIES AND FORUM SELECTION, 19 U. Ark. Little Rock L.J.
219, 240 (1997)
878 TRIBAL LAW, 24 U. Ark. Little Rock L. Rev. 1109, 1113 (2002) HN: 8 (S.Ct.)
879 THE CONGRESSIONAL RESPONSE TO DURO v. REINA: COMPROMISING
SOVEREIGNTY AND THE CONSTITUTION, 28 U.C. Davis L. Rev. 53, 163+
(1994) HN: 8 (S.Ct.)
880 APPLICABILITY OF FEDERAL LAWS OF GENERAL APPLICATION TO

INDIAN TRIBES AND RESERVATION INDIANS, 25 U.C. Davis L. Rev. 85,
108+ (1991) HN: 5,23,24 (S.Ct.)
881 REAFFIRMING INDIAN TRIBAL COURT CRIMINAL JURISDICTION
OVER NON-INDIANS: AN ARGUMENT FOR A STATUTORY ABROGA-
TION OF OLIPHANT, 57 UCLA L. Rev. 553, 604+ (2009) HN: 2 (S.Ct.)
882 WHY CONGRESS MAY NOT "OVERRULE" THE DORMANT COMMERCE
CLAUSE, 53 UCLA L. Rev. 153, 238 (2005)
883 UNCONSTITUTIONAL CONDITIONS AND GREATER POWERS: A SEPAR-
ABILITY APPROACH, 43 UCLA L. Rev. 371, 520 (1995) HN: 10 (S.Ct.)
884 THE BORDERS OF THE EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE: INDIANS AS
PEOPLES, 38 UCLA L. Rev. 759, 870 (1991)
885 POLICY, POLITICS, AND LAW, 31 UCLA L. Rev. 1247, 1266 (1984) HN: 27
(S.Ct.)
886 A WORLD WITHOUT TRIBES? TRIBAL RIGHTS OF SELF-GOVERNMENT
AND THE ENFORCEMENT OF STATE COURT ORDERS IN INDIAN
COUNTRY, 61 U. Chi. L. Rev. 707, 732+ (1994) HN: 19,21 (S.Ct.)
887 TRIBAL COURT JURISDICTION IN DISSOLUTION-BASED CUSTODY
PROCEEDINGS, 2001 U. Chi. Legal F. 613, 652 (2001) HN: 20 (S.Ct.)
888 CONGRESSIONAL POWER TO CHANGE CONSTITUTIONAL LAW:
THREE LACUNAE, 77 U. Cin. L. Rev. 1053, 1126 (2009) HN: 31 (S.Ct.)
889 A GAME THEORETIC APPROACH TO THE REGULATION OF FOREIGN
DIRECT INVESTMENT AND THE MULTINATIONAL CORPORATION, 60
U. Cin. L. Rev. 305, 346+ (1991) HN: 36 (S.Ct.)
890 TRIBAL CIVIL JUDICIAL JURISDICTION OVER NONMEMBERS: A PRAC-
TICAL GUIDE FOR JUDGES, 81 U. Colo. L. Rev. 1187, 1236+ (2010) HN: 8
(S.Ct.)
891 RESISTING FEDERAL COURTS ON TRIBAL JURISDICTION, 81 U. Colo. L.
Rev. 973, 1025+ (2010) HN: 8,12,16 (S.Ct.)
892 INDIGENOUS PEOPLE AND ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE: THE IMPACT
OF CLIMATE CHANGE, 78 U. Colo. L. Rev. 1625, 1677+ (2007) HN: 8 (S.Ct.)
893 THE FAILURE OF THE VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN ACT'S FULL FAITH
AND CREDIT PROVISION IN INDIAN COUNTRY: AN ARGUMENT FOR
AMENDMENT, 74 U. Colo. L. Rev. 765, 794 (2003) HN: 23 (S.Ct.)
894 A WALK ON THE INSIDE, 71 U. Colo. L. Rev. 397, 407+ (2000) HN: 24
(S.Ct.)
895 HABITAT CONSERVATION PLANNING UNDER THE ENDANGERED SPE-
CIES ACT: NO SURPRISES & THE QUEST FOR CERTAINTY, 67 U. Colo. L.
Rev. 371, 405 (1996) HN: 21 (S.Ct.)
896 IS THERE INDIAN COUNTRY IN ALASKA? FORTY-FOUR MILLION
ACRES IN LEGAL LIMBO, 64 U. Colo. L. Rev. 849, 869 (1993) HN: 8 (S.Ct.)
897 THE INDIAN WELFARE ACT OF 1978: PROTECTING ESSENTIAL TRIBAL

INTERESTS, 60 U. Colo. L. Rev. 131, 167 (1989)
898 FRESH PURSUIT ONTO NATIVE AMERICAN RESERVATIONS: STATE
RIGHTS "TO PURSUE SAVAGE HOSTILE INDIAN MARAUDERS ACROSS
THE BORDER' AN ANALYSIS OF THE LIMITS OF STATE INTRUSION IN-
TO TRIBAL SOVEREIGNTY, 59 U. Colo. L. Rev. 191, 287+ (1988) HN: 8
(S.Ct.)
899 APPICATION OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT TO INDIAN
TRIBES: PRESERVING INDIAN SELF-GOVERNMENT AND ECONOMIC
SECURITY, 27 U. Dayton L. Rev. 189, 215 (2001)
900 THE THRUST AND PARRY OF FEDERAL INDIAN LAW, 23 U. Dayton L.
Rev. 437, 512+ (1998) HN: 23 (S.Ct.)
901 THE OKLAHOMA WATER SALE MORATORIUM: HOW FEAR AND MIS-
UNDERSTANDING LED TO AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL LAW, 12 U. Denv.
Water L. Rev. 357, 376 (2009)
902 THE POWER TO TAX, THE POWER TO DESTROY, AND THE MICHIGAN
TRIBAL-STATE TAX AGREEMENTS, 82 U. Det. Mercy L. Rev. 1, 46+ (2004)
HN: 2 (S.Ct.)
903 MICHIGAN'S STORY: STATE AND TRIBAL COURTS TRY TO DO THE
RIGHT THING, 76 U. Det. Mercy L. Rev. 709, 720+ (1999) HN: 8 (S.Ct.)
904 REDISCOVERING AMERICA: RECOGNIZING THE SOVEREIGNTY OF
NATIVE AMERICAN INDIAN NATIONS, 76 U. Det. Mercy L. Rev. 745, 787+
(1999) HN: 27 (S.Ct.)
905 AMERICAN INDIAN LAW -- TRIBAL LANDS -- AN INDIAN TRIBE THAT
HOLDS TITLE TO LAND BY TRANSFER UNDER THE ALASKA NATIVE
CLAIMS SETTLEMENT ACT MAY NOT IMPOSE BUSINESS TAX WHEN
ITS LAND IS NOT INDIAN COUNTRY WITHIN THE STATUTO, 76 U. Det.
Mercy L. Rev. 903, 926+ (1999) HN: 8,23,24 (S.Ct.)
906 THE 1995 LEGISLATION FOR PRISONER LITIGATION REFORM: HAS
THE PENDULUM SWUNG THE OTHER WAY?, 74 U. Det. Mercy L. Rev.
557, 581 (1997) HN: 18 (S.Ct.)
907 SOVEREIGNTY IN THE BALANCE: TAXATION BY TRIBAL GOVERN-
MENTS, 15 U. Fla. J.L. & Pub. Pol'y 349, 352+ (2004) HN: 8,23,24 (S.Ct.)
908 THE ABORIGINAL LAND TITLE OF THE NATIVE PEOPLE OF GUAM, 26
U. Haw. L. Rev. 1, 19 (2003)
909 NEW PLAYERS IN THE PUBLIC BORROWING GAME: TAX AND SOVER-
EIGNTY CONSIDERATIONS AS FREELY ASSOCIATED STATES AND IN-
DIAN TRIBES APPROACH WALL STREET, 11 U. Haw. L. Rev. 111, 142
(1989) HN: 24 (S.Ct.)
910 THE IMPACT OF THE GARCIA DECISION ON THE MARKET-PARTI-
CIPANT EXCEPTION TO THE DORMANT COMMERCE CLAUSE, 1995 U.
Ill. L. Rev. 727, 759 (1995) HN: 31 (S.Ct.)
911 STATURE AND SCRUTINY: POST-EXHAUSTION REVIEW OF TRIBAL

COURT DECISIONS, 46 U. Kan. L. Rev. 241, 253+ (1998) HN: 3,17,24 (S.Ct.)
912 JAMES K. LOGAN; COLLEAGUE, MENTOR, FRIEND, JURIST, SCHOLAR,
TEACHER, SMALL-TOWN KANSAS KID, 43 U. Kan. L. Rev. 493, 501 (1995)
913 SAME-SEX MARRIAGE, INDIAN TRIBES, AND THE CONSTITUTION, 61
U. Miami L. Rev. 53, 85 (2006)
914 AMERICAN INDIAN TRIBAL DEATH-A CENTENNIAL REMEMBRANCE,
41 U. Miami L. Rev. 409, 423+ (1986) HN: 20 (S.Ct.)
915 A PROPOSAL FOR EXTENSION OF THE OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND
HEALTH ACT TO INDIAN-OWNED BUSINESSES ON RESERVATIONS, 18
U. Mich. J.L. Reform 473, 491+ (1985) HN: 20,23,24 (S.Ct.)
916 AN AMERICAN TRIFEDERALISM BASED UPON THE CONSTITUTIONAL
STATUS OF TRIBAL NATIONS, 5 U. Pa. J. Const. L. 318, 356 (2003) HN:
17,24 (S.Ct.)
917 ALLOCATIONAL SANCTIONS: THE PROBLEM OF NEGATIVE RIGHTS IN
A POSITIVE STATE, 132 U. Pa. L. Rev. 1293, 1397 (1984)
918 FEDERAL POWER OVER INDIANS: ITS SOURCES, SCOPE, AND LIMITA-
TIONS, 132 U. Pa. L. Rev. 195, 288+ (1984) HN: 23,24 (S.Ct.)
919 GEOGRAPHICALLY-BASED AND MEMBERSHIP-BASED VIEWS OF IN-
DIAN TRIBAL SOVEREIGNTY: THE SUPREME COURT'S CHANGING VIS-
ION, 55 U. Pitt. L. Rev. 1, 97+ (1993) HN: 23 (S.Ct.)
920 FALLING THROUGH THE CRACKS AFTER DURO v. REINA: A CLOSE
LOOK AT JURISDICTIONAL FAILURE, 15 U. Puget Sound L. Rev. 229, 259+
(1991) HN: 8,10 (S.Ct.)
921 TWO PROMISES, TWO PROPOSITIONS: THE WHEELER-HOWARD ACT
AS A RECONCILIATION OF THE INDIAN LAW CIVIL WAR, 14 U. Puget
Sound L. Rev. 211, 269+ (1991) HN: 8,23,24 (S.Ct.)
922 UNDERMINING TRIBAL LAND USE REGULATORY AUTHORITY:
BRENDALE v. CONFEDERATED TRIBES, 13 U. Puget Sound L. Rev. 349,
375+ (1990)
923 "CALL IT THE REVENGE OF THE PEQUOTS," OR HOW AMERICAN INDI-
AN TRIBES CAN SUE STATES UNDER THE INDIAN GAMING REGULAT-
ORY ACT WITHOUT VIOLATING THE ELEVENTH AMENDMENT, 27
U.S.F. L. Rev. 907, 958 (1993)
924 ADVANCING TRIBAL SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY AS A PATHWAY TO
POWER, 27 U.S.F. L. Rev. 419, 475+ (1993) HN: 8 (S.Ct.)
925 A NEW FEDERALISM FOR INDIAN TRIBES: THE RELATIONSHIP
BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES AND TRIBES IN LIGHT OF OUR FED-
ERALISM AND REPUBLICAN DEMOCRACY, 25 U. Tol. L. Rev. 617, 672
(1994)
926 MISSION CREEP: ANTITRUST EXEMPTIONS AND IMMUNITIES AS AP-
PLIED TO DEREGULATED INDUSTRIES, 2006 Utah L. Rev. 761, 810 (2006)
HN: 29 (S.Ct.)

927 A CIVIC-REPUBLICAN VISION OF "DOMESTIC DEPENDENT NATIONS"
IN THE TWENTY-FIRST CENTURY: TRIBAL SOVEREIGNTY RE-
ENVISIONED, REINVIGORATED, AND RE-EMPOWERED, 2005 Utah L.
Rev. 443, 571+ (2005) HN: 7 (S.Ct.)
928 PROTECTING THE ATTRIBUTES OF NATIVE SOVEREIGNTY: A NEW
TRUST PARADIGM FOR FEDERAL ACTIONS AFFECTING TRIBAL
LANDS AND RESOURCES, 1995 Utah L. Rev. 109, 237+ (1995) HN: 8,10,24
(S.Ct.)
929 RECONCILING FEDERAL AND STATE POWER INSIDE INDIAN RESER-
VATIONS WITH THE RIGHT OF TRIBAL SELF-GOVERNMENT AND THE
PROCESS OF SELF-DETERMINATION, 1995 Utah L. Rev. 1105, 1156+
(1995) HN: 5,8,10 (S.Ct.)
930 INDIAN LAND AND THE PROMISE OF NATIVE SOVEREIGNTY: THE
TRUST DOCTRINE REVISITED, 1994 Utah L. Rev. 1471, 1569 (1994)
931 DURO v. REINA: THE LAST NAIL IN THE COFFIN FOR INDIAN TRIBAL
SOVEREIGNTY, 1991 Utah L. Rev. 675, 704+ (1991) HN: 8,16 (S.Ct.)
932 STATE AUTHORITY TO TAX NON-INDIAN OIL & GAS PRODUCTION ON
RESERVATIONS: COTTON PETROLEUM CORP. v. NEW MEXICO, 1989
Utah L. Rev. 495, 506+ (1989) HN: 24,33,35 (S.Ct.)
933 RECONCEPTUALIZING SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY, 45 Vand. L. Rev. 1529,
1580 (1992) HN: 21 (S.Ct.)
934 TWO SIDES OF THE SAME COIN: THE POTENTIAL NORMATIVE POWER
OF AMERICAN CITIES AND INDIAN TRIBES, 44 Vand. L. Rev. 1273, 1312+
(1991)
935 IMPLEMENTING THE RESOURCE CONSERVATION AND RECOVERY
ACT (RCRA) IN INDIAN COUNTRY AND APPROACHES FOR AMENDING
RCRA TO BETTER SERVE TRIBAL INTERESTS, 26 Vt. L. Rev. 881, 903+
(2002) HN: 2,5 (S.Ct.)
936 THE TRIBAL PROPERTY RIGHT TO WILDLIFE CAPITAL (PART II): AS-
SERTING A SOVEREIGN SERVITUDE TO PROTECT HABITAT OF IM-
PERILED SPECIES, 25 Vt. L. Rev. 355, 448 (2001)
937 TREATING TRIBES AS STATES UNDER FEDERAL STATUTES IN THE
ENVIRONMENTAL ARENA: WHERE LAWS OF NATURE AND NATURAL
LAW COLLIDE, 21 Vt. L. Rev. 111, 130+ (1996) HN: 24 (S.Ct.)
938 THE THURGOOD MARSHALL PAPERS AND THE QUEST FOR A PRIN-
CIPLED THEORY OF TRIBAL SOVEREIGNTY: FUELING THE FIRES OF
TRIBAL/STATE CONFLICT, 21 Vt. L. Rev. 47, 67+ (1996) HN: 5,8,23 (S.Ct.)
939 RECONCILING THE SOVEREIGNTY OF INDIAN TRIBES IN CIVIL MAT-
TERS WITH THE MONTANA LINE OF CASES, 55 Vill. L. Rev. 863, 898+
(2010) HN: 2 (S.Ct.)
940 NO SURPRISES AFTER WINSTAR: CONTRACTUAL CERTAINTY AND
HABITAT CONSERVATION PLANNING UNDER THE ENDANGERED SPE-

CIES ACT, 17 Va. Envtl. L.J. 357, 384 (1998) HN: 22 (S.Ct.)
941 THURGOOD MARSHALL, THE RACE MAN, AND GENDER EQUALITY IN
THE COURTS, 18 Va. J. Soc. Pol'y & L. 15, 43 (2010)
942 SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY OF INDIAN TRIBES: A PROPOSAL FOR STAT-
UTORY WAIVER FOR TRIBAL BUSINESSES, 79 Va. L. Rev. 1345, 1380
(1993)
943 TAX TRANSITIONS AND THE PROTECTION RACKET: A REPLY TO PRO-
FESSORS GRAETZ AND KAPLOW, 75 Va. L. Rev. 1155, 1175 (1989)
944 CIVIC VIRTUE AND THE FEMININE VOICE IN CONSTITUTIONAL ADJU-
DICATION, 72 Va. L. Rev. 543, 616 (1986) HN: 2 (S.Ct.)
945 A HISTORICAL BRAID OF INEQUALITY: AN INDIGENOUS PERSPECT-
IVE OF BROWN V. BOARD OF EDUCATION, 43 Washburn L.J. 285, 310
(2004)
946 ADMINISTRATIVE LAW: THE NAVAJO NATION DEFEATS NON-INDIAN
COMPANY AND SCORES ONE FOR NATIVE AMERICAN LEGAL SELF-
DETERMINATION ( PITTSBURG & MIDWAY MINING CO. V. WATCH-
MAN, 52 F.3D 1531 (10TH CIR. 1995)), 35 Washburn L.J. 376, 399+ (1996)
HN: 1,2,8 (S.Ct.)
947 IN A CLASS BY THEMSELVES: A PROPOSAL TO INCORPORATE TRIBAL
COURTS INTO THE FEDERAL COURT SYSTEM WITHOUT COMPROM-
ISING THEIR UNIQUE STATUS AS "DOMESTIC DEPENDENT NATIONS",
65 Wash. & Lee L. Rev. 283, 345+ (2008) HN: 8 (S.Ct.)
948 A LACK OF TRUST: SOUTH DAKOTA V. YANKTON SIOUX TRIBE AND
THE ABANDONMENT OF THE TRUST DOCTRINE IN RESERVATION DI-
MINISHMENT CASES, 73 Wash. L. Rev. 1163, 1200 (1998) HN: 21 (S.Ct.)
949 FRAGILE GAINS: TWO CENTURIES OF CANADIAN AND UNITED
STATES POLICY TOWARD INDIANS, 66 Wash. L. Rev. 643, 718 (1991) HN:
7 (S.Ct.)
950 THE DECLINE OF TRIBAL SOVEREIGNTY: THE JOURNEY FROM DICTA
TO DOGMA IN DURO v. REINA, 110 S.CT. 2053 (1990), 66 Wash. L. Rev.
567, 586+ (1991) HN: 7,14,20 (S.Ct.)
951 SOLUTIONS FOR UNEASY NEIGHBORS: REGULATING THE RESERVA-
TION ENVIRONMENT AFTER BRENDALE V. CONFEDERATED TRIBES &
BANDS OF YAKIMA INDIAN NATION, 109 S.CT. 2994 (1989), 65 Wash. L.
Rev. 417, 436 (1990) HN: 8 (S.Ct.)
952 CONTROL OF THE RESERVATION ENVIRONMENT: TRIBAL PRIMACY,
FEDERAL DELEGATION, AND THE LIMITS OF STATE INTRUSION, 64
Wash. L. Rev. 581, 659+ (1989) HN: 10,22 (S.Ct.)
953 INDIAN SOVEREIGNTY: CONFUSION PREVAILS-CALIFORNIA v.
CABAZON BAND OF MISSION INDIANS, 107 S CT. 1083 (1987)., 63 Wash.
L. Rev. 169, 193+ (1988) HN: 23 (S.Ct.)
954 THE STATUS OF INDIAN TRIBES IN AMERICAN LAW TODAY, 62 Wash.

L. Rev. 1, 22 (1987)
955 IS THERE ANY INDIAN "LAW" LEFT? A REVIEW OF THE SUPREME
COURT'S 1982 TERM, 59 Wash. L. Rev. 863, 883+ (1984) HN: 6 (S.Ct.)
956 NEW LIFE FOR THE DOCTRINE OF UNCONSTITUTIONAL CONDI-
TIONS?-COMMITTEE TO DEFEND REPRODUCTIVE RIGHTS v. MYERS,
29 CAL.3D 252, 625 P.2D 779, 172 CAL.RPTR 866 (1981)., 58 Wash. L. Rev.
679, 707 (1983) HN: 10,11 (S.Ct.)
957 THE NORTHWEST POWER ACT AND RESERVED TRIBAL RIGHTS, 58
Wash. L. Rev. 357, 386+ (1983) HN: 23 (S.Ct.)
958 FELIX S. COHEN'S HANDBOOK OF FEDERAL INDIAN LAW, 1982 EDI-
TION, 57 Wash. L. Rev. 799, 811+ (1982) HN: 24 (S.Ct.)
959 THE ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT: STATIC LAW MEETS DYNAMIC
WORLD, 32 Wash. U. J.L. & Pol'y 175, 235 (2010) HN: 21 (S.Ct.)
960 THE INSIDIOUS COLONIALISM OF THE CONQUEROR: THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT IN MODERN TRIBAL AFFAIRS, 19 Wash. U. J.L. & Pol'y
273, 311 (2005)
961 "ATT HASCU "AM O "I-OI? WHAT DIRECTION SHOULD WE TAKE?: THE
DESERT PEOPLE'S APPROACH TO THE MILITARIZATION OF THE BOR-
DER, 19 Wash. U. J.L. & Pol'y 339, 363 (2005) HN: 5,8 (S.Ct.)
962 KILLING THE NEW BUFFALO: STATE ELEVENTH AMENDMENT DE-
FENSE TO ENFORCEMENT OF IGRA INDIAN GAMING COMPACTS, 47
Wash. U. J. Urb. & Contemp. L. 51, 119 (1995) HN: 23,34 (S.Ct.)
963 STATE JURISDICTION TO TAX INDIAN RESERVATION LAND AND
ACTIVITIES, 44 Wash. U. J. Urb. & Contemp. L. 99, 134+ (1993) HN: 2,24,34
(S.Ct.)
964 CONGRESSIONAL DELEGATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATORY
JURISDICTION: NATIVE AMERICAN CONTROL OF THE RESERVATION
ENVIRONMENT, 41 Wash. U. J. Urb. & Contemp. L. 133, 161+ (1992) HN:
2,8,10 (S.Ct.)
965 BALANCING "PECULIARLY FEDERAL INTERESTS" AND INDIAN SOV-
EREIGNTY IN CRIMES BY AND AGAINST INDIANS IN INDIAN COUN-
TRY, 78 Wash. U. L.Q. 347, 369 (2000) HN: 34 (S.Ct.)
966 RETAKING THE FIELD: THE CONSTITUTIONAL CONSTRAINTS ON FED-
ERAL LEGISLATION THAT DISPLACES CONSENT DECREES, 77 Wash. U.
L.Q. 53, 136+ (1999) HN: 20,21 (S.Ct.)
967 PLURALITY AND PRECEDENCE: JUDICIAL REASONING, LOWER
COURTS, AND THE MEANING OF UNITED STATES V. WINSTAR CORP.,
85 Wash. U. L. Rev. 1373, 1417 (2008)
968 WATER QUALITY REGULATION AND CALIFORNIA WATER RIGHTS An
Analysis of Takings Issues, 1 West-N.W. 107, 118 (1994) HN: 22 (S.Ct.)
969 FEDERAL INDIAN LAW-AMBIGUOUS ABROGATION: THE FIRST CIR-
CUIT STRIPS THE NARRAGANSETT INDIAN TRIBE OF ITS SOVEREIGN

IMMUNITY, 31 W. New Eng. L. Rev. 243, 292+ (2009) HN: 21 (S.Ct.)
970 FALLEN TIMBER: A PROPOSAL FOR THE NATIONAL LABOR RELA-
TIONS BOARD TO ASSERT JURISDICTION OVER INDIAN-OWNED AND
CONTROLLED BUSINESSES ON TRIBAL RESERVATIONS, 17 W. New
Eng. L. Rev. 1, 28+ (1995) HN: 2,7 (S.Ct.)
971 TRIBAL SOVEREIGNTY AND THE ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT, 6 Wil-
lamette J. Int'l L. & Disp. Resol. 131, 152 (1998) HN: 20 (S.Ct.)
972 TRIBAL COURTS AND THE FEDERAL UNION, 26 Willamette L. Rev. 841,
936+ (1990) HN: 8 (S.Ct.)
973 ADJUDICATION IN INDIAN COUNTRY: THE CONFUSING PARAMETERS
OF STATE, FEDERAL, AND TRIBAL JURISDICTION, 38 Wm. & Mary L.
Rev. 539, 603 (1997) HN: 2 (S.Ct.)
974 REAFFIRMING THE GUARANTEE: INDIAN TREATY RIGHTS TO HUNT
AND FISH OFF-RESERVATION IN MINNESOTA, 20 Wm. Mitchell L. Rev.
1177, 1212+ (1994) HN: 1,5 (S.Ct.)
975 SELECTED 1996 ENVIRONMENTAL CASES, 4 Wis. Envtl. L.J. 111, 124+
(1997) HN: 31 (S.Ct.)
976 A TALE OF TWO SOVEREIGNS: THE IMPLICATIONS OF DAIRYLAND
GREYHOUND PARK, INC. V. DOYLE ON TRIBAL AND STATE SELF-
GOVERNMENT, 2007 Wis. L. Rev. 1313, 1354+ (2007) HN: 20,21,22 (S.Ct.)
977 ERISA AND INDIAN TRIBES: ALTERNATIVE APPROACHES FOR RE-
SPECTING TRIBAL SOVEREIGNTY, 2000 Wis. L. Rev. 1291, 1322+ (2000)
HN: 1,20,22 (S.Ct.)
978 THE ALGEBRA OF FEDERAL INDIAN LAW: THE HARD TRIAL OF DE-
COLONIZING AND AMERICANIZING THE WHITE MAN'S INDIAN JURIS-
PRUDENCE, 1986 Wis. L. Rev. 219, 267+ (1986) HN: 6,23,24 (S.Ct.)
979 THE MOST DANGEROUS BRANCH: AN INSTITUTIONAL APPROACH TO
UNDERSTANDING THE ROLE OF THE JUDICIARY IN AMERICAN INDI-
AN JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATIONS, 1986 Wis. L. Rev. 989, 1025+
(1986) HN: 2,9,24 (S.Ct.)
980 ENVIRONMENTAL LAW & INDIAN LANDS, 69-SEP Wis. Law. 14, 60+
(1996) HN: 2,8 (S.Ct.)
981 INTERNATIONAL RESPONSIBILITY FOR HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATIONS
BY AMERICAN INDIAN TRIBES, 9 Yale Hum. Rts. & Dev. L.J. 1, 43+ (2006)
HN: 8 (S.Ct.)
982 WESTERN JUSTICE, 112 Yale L.J. 975, 982 (2003) HN: 8 (S.Ct.)
983 A COMMON LAW FOR OUR AGE OF COLONIALISM: THE JUDICIAL DI-
VESTITURE OF INDIAN TRIBAL AUTHORITY OVER NONMEMBERS, 109
Yale L.J. 1, 85+ (1999) HN: 1,8,24 (S.Ct.)
984 TRIBAL GOVERNMENTS AND ENVIRONMENTAL LAW, SH055 American
Law Institute-American Bar Association 269+ (2003)

985 108 BNA Daily Labor Report E-9, 2004, NOTICE (2004) HN: 10,23,24 (S.Ct.)
986 14 BNA Daily Labor Report AA-1, 2002, LABOR LAW: FEDERAL LABOR
LAW DOES NOT PREEMPT INDIAN TRIBE'S RIGHT-TO-WORK ORDIN-
ANCE (2002)
987 14 BNA Daily Labor Report D-3, 2002 (2002)
988 67 BNA Daily Labor Report F-1, 1989 (1989)
989 234 BNA Daily Report for Executives K-16, 2005, SUPREME COURT OF THE
UNITED STATES (2005) HN: 1 (S.Ct.)
990 234 BNA Daily Report for Executives L-1, 2005, Supreme Court:U.S. Supreme
Court Opinion in Wagnon v. Prairie Band Potawatomi Nation, Decided Dec. 6,
2005 (2005)
991 168 BNA Daily Report for Executives K-4, 2003, NATIVE AMERICANS:
FACTS. (2003) HN: 1 (S.Ct.)
992 66 BNA Daily Report for Executives K-4, 2002, TAX BENEFITS: FACTS.
(2002) HN: 7 (S.Ct.)
993 133 BNA Daily Report for Executives K-7, 2001, TAX BENEFITS: FACTS.
(2001) HN: 19 (S.Ct.)
994 104 BNA Daily Report for Executives K-17, 2001, SUPREME COURT OF THE
UNITED STATES (2001)
995 145 BNA Daily Report for Executives K-5, 2000, SECTION 7871-INDIAN TRI-
BAL GOVERNMENTS TREATED AS STATES FOR TAX PURPOSES (2000)
996 138 BNA Daily Report for Executives K-5, 2000, NATIVE AMERICANS:
FACTS. (2000) HN: 8 (S.Ct.)
997 89 BNA Daily Report for Executives K-3, 1997, FACTS. (1997) HN: 14 (S.Ct.)
998 1996 BNA Daily Report for Executives 114 D90, SEC. 7871-INDIAN TRIBAL
GOVERNMENTS TREATED AS STATES FOR TAX PURPOSES; Tribe classi-
fied as Indian tribal government. DOC. 9623020. (1996)
999 1995 BNA Daily Report for Executives 135 D95, INDIANS-OIL AND GAS
PRODUCED ON ALLOTTED LANDS SUBJECT TO TRIBE'S SEVERANCE
TAX; Allotted lands that have never been conveyed in fee simple to individual
tribal members but have continuously been held in trust by governm (1995) HN:
24 (S.Ct.)
1000 1995 BNA Daily Report for Executives 123 D105, NUCLEAR DECOMMIS-
SIONING-SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS MADE TO CLEAN UP ENRICHMENT
FACILITIES DO NOT APPLY TO NON-OPERATING UTILITY COMPANY;
Special assessments made to clean up uranium enrichment facilities do not apply
to non-ope (1995) HN: 18,21 (S.Ct.)
1001 1994 BNA Daily Report for Executives 15 D99, U.S. SUPREME COURT DE-
CISION IN "NORTHWEST AIRLINES, INC. V. COUNTY OF KENT,
MICHIGAN' (NO. 92-97), UPHOLDING REASONABLENESS OF MICHIGAN
AIRPORT'S ALLOCATION OF COSTS AMONG AIRLINES, GENERAL AVI-

ATION, AND CONCESSIONS, DEC (1994) HN: 31 (S.Ct.)
1002 1993 BNA Daily Report for Executives 196 D128, JURISDICTION-CHAL-
LENGE TO TRIBAL TAXING JURISDICTION FIRST PRESENTED TO TRI-
BAL COURT; Tribal exhaustion rule requires oil and gas company and pipeline
company challenging Indian tribe's severance and business activity ta (1993) HN:
5 (S.Ct.)
1003 1992 BNA Daily Report for Executives 228 D60, UNITARY TAX-
CALIFORNIA'S WORLDWIDE COMBINED REPORTING METHOD UP-
HELD AGAINST FOREIGN-BASED MULTINATIONAL; California's world-
wide combined reporting method of allocating income of a unitary business does
not violate the Fo (1992) HN: 29 (S.Ct.)
1004 1992 BNA Daily Report for Executives 228 D61, UNITARY TAX-
CALIFORNIA UNITARY TAX VALID AS APPLIED TO DOMESTIC-PAR-
ENT CORPORATE GROUP; California's worldwide unitary method of taxation,
as applied to domestic-parent unitary corporate groups, does not violate the Fore
(1992) HN: 31 (S.Ct.)
1005 141 BNA Daily Report for Executives J-1, 1989, SUPREME COURT RE-
SOLVES MAJOR TAX ISSUES IN BUSY TERM, INCLUDING IRS SUM-
MONS POWER, BOOT RECEIVED IN REORGANIZATIONS, REINSUR-
ANCE CEDING COMMISSIONS (1989) HN: 24 (S.Ct.)
1006 79 BNA Daily Tax Report G-2, 1989, SUPREME COURT: NEW MEXICO, IN-
DIAN OIL AND GAS SEVERANCE TAXES MAY CO-EXIST, COURT
RULES (1989) HN: 24 (S.Ct.)
1007 79 BNA Daily Report for Executives G-2, 1989, SUPREME COURT: NEW
MEXICO, INDIAN OIL AND GAS SEVERANCE TAXES MAY CO-EXIST,
COURT RULES (1989) HN: 24 (S.Ct.)
1008 170 BNA Daily Report for Executives H-9, 1986, ATTORNEY'S FEES-INDIAN
TRIBE DENIED AWARD DESPITE DEFEAT OF ARIZONA TAXES: Indian
Tribe that successfully challenged Arizona taxes on the ground of supremacy of
federal regulation of logging on tribal lands is not entitl (1986) HN: 24 (S.Ct.)
1009 234 BNA Daily Tax Report K-16, 2005, SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED
STATES (2005) HN: 1 (S.Ct.)
1010 234 BNA Daily Tax Report L-1, 2005, Supreme Court:U.S. Supreme Court Opin-
ion in Wagnon v. Prairie Band Potawatomi Nation, Decided Dec. 6, 2005 (2005)
1011 168 BNA Daily Tax Report K-4, 2003, NATIVE AMERICANS: FACTS. (2003)
HN: 1 (S.Ct.)
1012 66 BNA Daily Tax Report K-4, 2002, TAX BENEFITS: FACTS. (2002) HN: 7
(S.Ct.)
1013 133 BNA Daily Tax Report K-7, 2001, TAX BENEFITS: FACTS. (2001) HN:
19 (S.Ct.)
1014 104 BNA Daily Tax Report K-17, 2001, SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED
STATES (2001)

1015 145 BNA Daily Tax Report K-5, 2000, SECTION 7871-INDIAN TRIBAL GOV-
ERNMENTS TREATED AS STATES FOR TAX PURPOSES (2000)
1016 138 BNA Daily Tax Report K-5, 2000, NATIVE AMERICANS: FACTS. (2000)
HN: 8 (S.Ct.)
1017 89 BNA Daily Tax Report K-3, 1997, FACTS. (1997) HN: 14 (S.Ct.)
1018 1996 BNA Daily Tax Report 114 D29, SEC. 7871-INDIAN TRIBAL GOVERN-
MENTS TREATED AS STATES FOR TAX PURPOSES; Tribe classified as In-
dian tribal government. DOC. 9623020. (1996)
1019 1995 BNA Daily Tax Report 135 D28, INDIANS-OIL AND GAS PRODUCED
ON ALLOTTED LANDS SUBJECT TO TRIBE'S SEVERANCE TAX; Allotted
lands that have never been conveyed in fee simple to individual tribal members
but have continuously been held in trust by governm (1995) HN: 24 (S.Ct.)
1020 1995 BNA Daily Tax Report 123 D48, NUCLEAR DECOMMISSIONING-SPE-
CIAL ASSESSMENTS MADE TO CLEAN UP ENRICHMENT FACILITIES
DO NOT APPLY TO NON-OPERATING UTILITY COMPANY; Special as-
sessments made to clean up uranium enrichment facilities do not apply to non-
ope (1995) HN: 18,21 (S.Ct.)
1021 1994 BNA Daily Tax Report 15 D66, U.S. SUPREME COURT DECISION IN
"NORTHWEST AIRLINES, INC. V. COUNTY OF KENT, MICHIGAN' (NO.
92-97), UPHOLDING REASONABLENESS OF MICHIGAN AIRPORT'S AL-
LOCATION OF COSTS AMONG AIRLINES, GENERAL AVIATION, AND
CONCESSIONS, DEC (1994) HN: 31 (S.Ct.)
1022 1993 BNA Daily Tax Report 196 D72, JURISDICTION-CHALLENGE TO TRI-
BAL TAXING JURISDICTION FIRST PRESENTED TO TRIBAL COURT;
Tribal exhaustion rule requires oil and gas company and pipeline company chal-
lenging Indian tribe's severance and business activity ta (1993) HN: 5 (S.Ct.)
1023 1992 BNA Daily Tax Report 228 D19, UNITARY TAX-CALIFORNIA'S
WORLDWIDE COMBINED REPORTING METHOD UPHELD AGAINST
FOREIGN-BASED MULTINATIONAL; California's worldwide combined re-
porting method of allocating income of a unitary business does not violate the Fo
(1992) HN: 29 (S.Ct.)
1024 1992 BNA Daily Tax Report 228 D20, UNITARY TAX-CALIFORNIA UNIT-
ARY TAX VALID AS APPLIED TO DOMESTIC-PARENT CORPORATE
GROUP; California's worldwide unitary method of taxation, as applied to do-
mestic-parent unitary corporate groups, does not violate the Fore (1992) HN: 31
(S.Ct.)
1025 141 BNA Daily Tax Report J-1, 1989, SUPREME COURT RESOLVES MAJOR
TAX ISSUES IN BUSY TERM, INCLUDING IRS SUMMONS POWER, BOOT
RECEIVED IN REORGANIZATIONS, REINSURANCE CEDING COMMIS-
SIONS (1989) HN: 24 (S.Ct.)
1026 170 BNA Daily Tax Report H-9, 1986, ATTORNEY'S FEES-INDIAN TRIBE
DENIED AWARD DESPITE DEFEAT OF ARIZONA TAXES: Indian Tribe
that successfully challenged Arizona taxes on the ground of supremacy of federal

regulation of logging on tribal lands is not entitl (1986) HN: 24 (S.Ct.)
1027 11/8/93 BNA Federal Contracts Daily (1993)
1028 5/11/92 BNA Federal Contracts Daily (1992)
1029 BARCLAYS AND COLGATE-PALMOLIVE: WORLDWIDE COMBINED RE-
PORTING OPEN FOR REVIEW, 13 BNA Tax Management Weekly Report 560
(1994)
1030 SUPREME COURT: COURT UPHOLDS PIPELINE SAFETY USER FEES
AND APPROVES MULTIPLE SEVERANCE TAXES, 8 BNA Tax Management
Weekly Report 547 (1989)
1031 8 BNA United States Law Week Supreme Court Today 123, 2008 (2008) HN: 8
(S.Ct.)
1032 5 BNA United States Law Week Supreme Court Today 233, 2005 (2005) HN:
1,5 (S.Ct.)
1033 5/29/2001 BNA U.S. Law Week - Supreme Court Today D7 (2001) HN: 24
(S.Ct.)
1034 SUPERVISORY GOODWILL, 666 Practising Law Institute Commercial Law
and Practice 645 (1993) HN: 19,21 (S.Ct.)
1035 DOING BUSINESS IN INDIAN COUNTRY, 872 Practising Law Institute Cor-
porate Law and Practice Course Handbook Series 7 (1994)
1036 THE GAMING INDUSTRY ON AMERICAN INDIAN LANDS: FINANCING
AND DEVELOPMENT ISSUES, 872 Practising Law Institute Corporate Law
and Practice Course Handbook Series 161 (1994) HN: 20 (S.Ct.)
1037 OVERVIEW: INCREASING COMPETITION TO CABLE INCUMBENTS
AND ITS EFFECT ON CABLE REGULATION, 723 Practising Law Institute
Patents, Copyrights, Trademarks, & Literary Property 7 (2002)
1038 PITFALLS AND POSSIBILITIES: UNDERSTANDING TAX ISSUES IM-
PACTING DEVELOPMENT IN INDIAN COUNTRY, 2011 NO. 2 Rocky
Mountain Mineral Law Foundation Institute PAPER NO. 11+ (2011)
1039 FUNDAMENTALS OF CONTRACTING BY AND WITH INDIAN TRIBES,
2011 NO. 2 Rocky Mountain Mineral Law Foundation Institute PAPER NO. 1A
(2011)
1040 INDIAN TRIBES-BUSINESS PARTNERS AND MARKET PARTICIPANTS:
STRATEGIES FOR EFFECTIVE TRIBAL / INDUSTRY PARTNERSHIP, 2011
NO. 2 Rocky Mountain Mineral Law Foundation Institute PAPER NO. 3B+
(2011)
1041 FROM MONTANA TO PLAINS COMMERCE BANK AND BEYOND: THE
SUPREME COURT'S VIEW OF TRIBAL JURISDICTION OVER NON-
MEMBERS, 2011 NO. 2 Rocky Mountain Mineral Law Foundation Institute PA-
PER NO. 9+ (2011)
1042 MINERAL AND ENERGY DEVELOPMENT ON NATIVE AMERICAN
LANDS: STRATEGIES FOR ADDRESSING SOVEREIGNTY, REGULATION,

RIGHTS, AND CULTURE, 56 Rocky Mountain Mineral Law Foundation Insti-
tute 5A-1 (2010)+ (2010)
1043 NAVAJO INDIAN COUNTRY AND THE NAVAJO NATION BAN ON
URANIUM MINING, 2006 NO. 2 Rocky Mountain Mineral Law Foundation In-
stitute PAPER NO. 13A+ (2006)
1044 BASICS OF SUCCESSFUL NATURAL RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT
PROJECTS IN INDIAN COUNTRY, 2005 NO. 5 Rocky Mountain Mineral Law
Foundation Institute PAPER NO. 1+ (2005)
1045 CONTRACTING WITH INDIAN TRIBES AND RESOLVING DISPUTES:
COVERING THE BASICS, 2005 NO. 5 Rocky Mountain Mineral Law Founda-
tion Institute PAPER NO. 11A+ (2005)
1046 TRIBAL TAXATION OF MINERAL RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT AFTER
ATKINSON, 2005 NO. 5 Rocky Mountain Mineral Law Foundation Institute
PAPER NO. 12+ (2005)
1047 COMPATIBILITY OF THE FEDERAL TRUST RESPONSIBILITY WITH
SELF-DETERMINATION OF INDIAN TRIBES: REFLECTIONS ON DEVEL-
OPMENT OF THE FEDERAL TRUST RESPONSIBILITY IN THE TWENTY-
FIRST CENTURY, 2005 NO. 5 Rocky Mountain Mineral Law Foundation Insti-
tute PAPER NO. 13A+ (2005)
1048 LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT ISSUES IN INDIAN COUNTRY: A NON-
INDIAN BUSINESS PERSPECTIVE, 2005 NO. 5 Rocky Mountain Mineral Law
Foundation Institute PAPER NO. 15 (2005)
1049 AGENCY ROLES IN OIL AND GAS DEVELOPMENT ON INDIAN LANDS,
2005 NO. 5 Rocky Mountain Mineral Law Foundation Institute PAPER NO. 6+
(2005)
1050 ADMINISTRATIVE APPEAL PROCEDURES FOR RIGHTS-OF-WAY, MIN-
ERAL LEASES, AND MINERAL AGREEMENTS ON INDIAN LANDS, 2004
NO. 3 Rocky Mountain Mineral Law Foundation Institute PAPER NO. 10 (2004)
1051 INDIAN TRUST ISSUES, 2004 NO. 1 Rocky Mountain Mineral Law Founda-
tion Institute PAPER NO. 14 (2004)
1052 EXPLORATION AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENTS ON INDIAN
LANDS, 50 Rocky Mountain Mineral Law Foundation Institute 12-1 (2004)
(2004)
1053 TAKINGS AND WATER RIGHTS, 48 Rocky Mountain Mineral Law Founda-
tion Institute 23 (2002)+ (2002)
1054 WHO'S IN CHARGE HERE? TRIBAL, STATE, AND FEDERAL AUTHORITY
OVER NON-INDIAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT IN INDIAN COUNTRY,
47 Rocky Mountain Mineral Law Foundation Institute 2 (2001)+ (2001)
1055 FEDERAL COMMON-LAW LIMITS ON TRIBAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
OVER NON-INDIANS INVOLVED IN ON-RESERVATION RESOURCE DE-
VELOPMENT PROJECTS: FOLLOWING THE STRATE PATH, 103C Rocky
Mountain Mineral Law Foundation Institute 15 (1999)+ (1999)

1056 "A TRAVESTY OF A MOCKERY OF A SHAM": THE FEDERAL TRUST
DUTY AND INDIAN SELF-DETERMINATION, 103C Rocky Mountain Miner-
al Law Foundation Institute 2B (1999)+ (1999)
1057 NEGOTIATING AND DRAFTING INDIAN MINERAL DEVELOPMENT ACT
AGREEMENTS, 103C Rocky Mountain Mineral Law Foundation Institute 6
(1999) (1999)
1058 TAX CONSIDERATIONS IN NATURAL RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT
PROJECTS ON INDIAN LANDS, 103C Rocky Mountain Mineral Law Founda-
tion Institute 7 (1999)+ (1999)
1059 NATIVE AMERICAN JURISDICTION AND PERMITTING, 38A Rocky
Mountain Mineral Law Foundation Institute 12 (1995)+ (1995)
1060 MINERAL DEVELOPMENT OF INDIAN LANDS: UNDERSTANDING THE
PROCESS AND AVOIDING THE PITFALLS, 39 Rocky Mountain Mineral Law
Foundation Institute 2 (1993)+ (1993)
1061 ROYALTY ISSUES ON LANDS OWNED BY STATE OR LOCAL GOVERN-
MENTS, 33B Rocky Mountain Mineral Law Foundation Institute 5 (1993)+
(1993)
1062 NATURAL RESOURCES INTERESTS AND RETROACTIVE LAWS, 32
Rocky Mountain Mineral Law Foundation Institute 3 (1992) (1992)
1063 OIL AND GAS LEASE OPERATION AND ROYALTY VALUATION ON IN-
DIAN LANDS; WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE IN FEDERAL AND INDIAN
LEASES?, 31A Rocky Mountain Mineral Law Foundation Institute 13 (1992)+
(1992)
1064 EXAMINATION OF TITLE TO INDIAN LANDS, 31B Rocky Mountain Miner-
al Law Foundation Institute 5 (1992) (1992)
1065 AN INTRODUCTION TO COALBED GAS DEVELOPMENT ON INDIAN
LANDS DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL, OWNERSHIP RIGHTS, AND OPER-
ATIONAL ISSUES, 32A Rocky Mountain Mineral Law Foundation Institute 3
(1992)+ (1992)
1066 MINIMIZING THE DOUBLE TAX BURDEN ON OIL AND GAS PRODUC-
TION IN INDIAN COUNTRY, 36 Rocky Mountain Mineral Law Foundation In-
stitute 17 (1990)+ (1990)
1067 THE WINTERS DOCTRINE ON WATER ADMINISTRATION, 36 Rocky
Mountain Mineral Law Foundation Institute 24 (1990) (1990)
1068 NATURAL RESOURCES FEDERALISM, 35 Rocky Mountain Mineral Law
1069 TRIBAL TAXATION OF RESERVATION MINERAL DEVELOPMENT, 23A
Rocky Mountain Mineral Law Foundation Institute 12 (1989)+ (1989)
1070 MULTIPLE TAXATION OF MINERAL EXTRACTION IN INDIAN COUN-
TRY: STATE AND INDIAN TRIBAL JURISDICTION, 23A Rocky Mountain
Mineral Law Foundation Institute 13 (1989)+ (1989)
1071 CHARACTERISTICS OF AN EFFECTIVE TRIBAL ENVIRONMENTAL

REGULATORY PROGRAM; THE PERSPECTIVE OF THE REGULATED
COMMUNITY, 23A Rocky Mountain Mineral Law Foundation Institute 18
(1989) (1989)
1072 ORGANIZATION AND STRUCTURE OF TRIBAL GOVERNMENTS, 23A
1073 GOVERNMENTAL POWER IN AND AROUND INDIAN COUNTRY: AN ES-
SAY CONTAINING BOTH A PRIMER FOR NEWCOMERS AND SOME
SUGGESTIONS FOR REFORM-MINDED OLDTIMERS, 23A Rocky Mountain
Mineral Law Foundation Institute 3 (1989)+ (1989)
1074 LUNCHEON TALK TRIBAL TAXATION: THE PRACTICAL CONSIDERA-
TIONS, 23A Rocky Mountain Mineral Law Foundation Institute 4 (1989) (1989)
1075 LITIGATION WITH INDIANS, 23A Rocky Mountain Mineral Law Foundation
Institute 6 (1989)+ (1989)
1076 MINERAL DEVELOPMENT ALTERNATIVES ON INDIAN LANDS, 23A
1077 DEVELOPMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES ON INDIAN LANDS, 34
1078 REDUCING THE IMPACT OF STATE, LOCAL, AND INDIAN TAXES ON
WESTERN MINERAL DEVELOPMENT, 30 Rocky Mountain Mineral Law
1079 ACQUIRING RIGHTS OF ACCESS AND SURFACE USES ON INDIAN
LANDS, 16A Rocky Mountain Mineral Law Foundation Institute 6 (1984)
(1984)
1080 MINERAL DEVELOPMENT ON INDIAN LANDS-COOPERATION AND
CONFLICT, 28 Rocky Mountain Mineral Law Foundation Institute 1 (1982)+
(1982)
1081 2000-01 Preview of the United States Supreme Court Cases 292, Is Tribal Taxa-
tion Different From Tribal Regulation? Atkinson Trading Company, Inc. v. Shir-
ley (2001) HN: 2,7,8 (S.Ct.)
1082 1997-98 Preview of the United States Supreme Court Cases 167, Q: When Is In-
dian Country Not Indian Country? A: When It's in Alaska Alaska v. Native Vil-
lage of Venetie Tribal Government et al. (1997) HN: 2 (S.Ct.)
1083 1996-97 Preview of the United States Supreme Court Cases 40, State Officer Im-
munity from Suits in Federal Court Involving Property Claims: Is There a Prop-
erty Exception to Ex parte Young? Idaho et al. v. Coeur d'Alene Tribe of Idaho et
al. (1996) HN: 22 (S.Ct.)
1084 1989-90 Preview of the United States Supreme Court Cases 181, Tribal criminal
jurisdiction over Indians who are not members of the prosecuting tribe Albert
Duro v. Edward Reina and the Hon. Relman R. Manuel, Sr. (1990) HN: 8 (S.Ct.)
1085 THE BATTLE FOR THE RETAIL TAX BASE IN INDIAN COUNTRY, 1 Tax
Management Multistate Tax Report 9 (2001)

Court Documents
Appellate Court Documents (U.S.A.)
Appellate Petitions, Motions and Filings

1086 Nation v. Equal Employment Opportunity Comm'n, 2011 WL 333950, *333950+
(Appellate Petition, Motion and Filing) (U.S. Jan 28, 2011) Petition for a Writ
of Certiorari (NO. 10-981)
1087 Ashworth LLC v. Department of Revenue, Finance and Admin. Cabinet, 2011
WL 50025, *50025+ (Appellate Petition, Motion and Filing) (U.S. Jan 04, 2011)
Reply Brief (NO. 10-662)
1088 City of New York v. The Permanent Mission of India to the United Nations, 2010
WL 5126513, *5126513+ (Appellate Petition, Motion and Filing) (U.S. Dec 13,
2010) Brief Amici Curiae of International Municipal Lawyers Association,
National League of Cities, and U.S. Conference of Mayors in Support of Peti-
tioner (NO. 10-627)
1089 United States of America v. Jicarilla Apache Nation, 2010 WL 3641207,
*3641207+ (Appellate Petition, Motion and Filing) (U.S. Sep 20, 2010) Petition
for a Writ of Certiorari (NO. 10-382)
1090 Bank of Guam v. United States of America, 2010 WL 2101914, *2101914+
(Appellate Petition, Motion and Filing) (U.S. May 21, 2010) Brief for the
United States in Opposition (NO. 09-1140) HN: 19,21 (S.Ct.)
1091 Davis v. The State of Minnesota, 2010 WL 638455, *638455 (Appellate Petition,
Motion and Filing) (U.S. Feb 16, 2010) Petition for Writ of Certiorari (NO.
09-1002)
1092 Elliott v. White Mountain Apache Tribal Court, 2009 WL 3341922, *3341922+
(Appellate Petition, Motion and Filing) (U.S. Oct 16, 2009) Brief in Opposition
(NO. 09-187) HN: 8 (S.Ct.)
1093 Elliott v. White Mountain Apache Tribal Court, 2009 WL 2481342, *2481342+
(Appellate Petition, Motion and Filing) (U.S. Aug 11, 2009) Petition for Writ of
Certiorari (NO. 09-187) HN: 11 (S.Ct.)
1094 Barnhill v. Veneman, 2008 WL 4609701, *4609701+ (Appellate Petition, Motion
and Filing) (U.S. Oct 06, 2008) Petition for Writ of Certiorari (NO. 08-489)
HN: 20 (S.Ct.)
1095 United States of America v. Navajo Nation, 2008 WL 3895603, *3895603+
(Appellate Petition, Motion and Filing) (U.S. Aug 21, 2008) Reply Brief for Pe-
titioner (NO. 07-1410)
1096 Ho-Chunk Nation v. State of Wisconsin, 2008 WL 2050799, *2050799+
(Appellate Petition, Motion and Filing) (U.S. May 08, 2008) Petition for a Writ
of Certiorari (NO. 07-1402)
1097 Plains Commerce Bank v. Long Family Land and Cattle Co. Inc., 2007 WL
4218441, *4218441+ (Appellate Petition, Motion and Filing) (U.S. Nov 26,

2007) Brief for Respondents in Opposition to Petition for Writ of Certiorari
(NO. 07-411) " HN: 1 (S.Ct.)
1098 Carcieri v. Kempthorne, 2007 WL 4178495, *4178495+ (Appellate Petition, Mo-
tion and Filing) (U.S. Nov 21, 2007) Brief of the States of Alabama, Alaska,
Arkansas, Connecticut, Florida, Idaho, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Massachu-
setts, Missouri, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, and
Utah as Amici ... (NO. 07-526) HN: 1,5 (S.Ct.)
1099 Philip Morris USA, Inc. v. State of Minnesota, 2007 WL 119441, *119441+
(Appellate Petition, Motion and Filing) (U.S. Jan 12, 2007) Petitioners' Reply
Brief (NO. 06-633) HN: 20 (S.Ct.)
1100 Af-Cap, Inc. v. The Republic of Congo, 2006 WL 3825381, *3825381+
(Appellate Petition, Motion and Filing) (U.S. Dec 21, 2006) Petition for a Writ
of Certiorari (NO. 06-877) HN: 20 (S.Ct.)
1101 Philip Morris USA, Inc. v. State of Minnesota, 2006 WL 3608190, *3608190+
(Appellate Petition, Motion and Filing) (U.S. Dec 07, 2006) Brief for the Re-
spondent in Opposition (NO. 06-633)
1102 Morris v. Tanner, 2006 WL 907423, *907423+ (Appellate Petition, Motion and
Filing) (U.S. Apr 06, 2006) Petition for Writ of Certiorari (NO. 05-1285)
HN: 21 (S.Ct.)
1103 Wagnon v. Prairie Band Potawatomi Nation, 2005 WL 1810379, *1810379+
(Appellate Petition, Motion and Filing) (U.S. Jul 13, 2005) Amici Curiae Brief
of Hoopa Valley Tribe and Colorado River Indian Tribes on Behalf of Re-
spondent Prairie Band Potawatomi Nation Regarding Value Generated on
Reservation (NO. 04-631)
1104 Walker Intern. Holdings Ltd. v. The Republic of Congo, 2005 WL 643380,
*643380+ (Appellate Petition, Motion and Filing) (U.S. Mar 16, 2005) Reply
Brief (NO. 04-1071) HN: 20,22 (S.Ct.)
1105 Republic of Congo v. Af-Cap, Inc., 2005 WL 547811, *547811+ (Appellate Peti-
tion, Motion and Filing) (U.S. Mar 04, 2005) Brief of Respondent Af-Cap, Inc.
in Opposition (NO. 04-1043) HN: 20 (S.Ct.)
1106 Orff v. United States of America, 2005 WL 66837, *66837 (Appellate Petition,
Motion and Filing) (U.S. Jan 07, 2005) Brief for Intervenors-Respondents Nat-
ural Resources Defense Council, et al. (NO. 03-1566)
1107 Hammond v. Coeur d'Alene Tribe of Idaho, 2004 WL 3008661, *3008661+
(Appellate Petition, Motion and Filing) (U.S. Dec 23, 2004) Opposition of Re-
spondents Coeur D'Alene Tribe of Idaho, Nez Perce Tribe, Shoshone-Ban-
nock Tribes to Petition for Writ of Certiorari (NO. 04-624)
1108 MICHIGAN BEER & WINE WHOLESALERS ASSOCIATION, Petitioner, v.
Eleanor HEALD, et al., Respondents., 2004 WL 850844, *850844+ (Appellate
Petition, Motion and Filing) (U.S. Apr 16, 2004) Reply Brief for the Petitioner
(NO. 03-1120) " HN: 31 (S.Ct.)
1109 MICHIGAN BEER & WINE WHOLESALERS ASSOCIATION, Petitioner, v.

Eleanor HEALD, et al., Respondents., 2004 WL 850846, *850846+ (Appellate
Petition, Motion and Filing) (U.S. Apr 16, 2004) Reply Brief for the Petitioner
(NO. 03-1120) " HN: 31 (S.Ct.)
1110 ALLSTATE CORPORATION, et al., Petitioners, v. Jose C. DEHOYOS, et al.,
Respondents., 2004 WL 616215, *616215+ (Appellate Petition, Motion and Fil-
ing) (U.S. Mar 26, 2004) Brief of the Chamber of Commerce of the United
States as Amicus Curiae in Support of Petitioner (NO. 03-1214) " HN: 31
(S.Ct.)
1111 Margaret A. PENN, petitioner, v. Larry A. BODIN, et al., 2004 WL 531006,
*531006+ (Appellate Petition, Motion and Filing) (U.S. Mar 10, 2004) Brief for
the Federal Respondents in Opposition (NO. 03-829) " HN: 8,10 (S.Ct.)
1112 COYOTE VALLEY BAND OF POMO INDIANS, Petitioner, v. THE STATE
OF CALIFORNIA, Respondent., 2004 WL 228915, *228915+ (Appellate Peti-
tion, Motion and Filing) (U.S. Feb 03, 2004) Petitioners Reply Brief (NO.
03-804)
1113 Margaret A. PENN, Petitioner, v. Larry A. BODIN, Richard Armstrong, and John
Vettleson, Respondents, Frank Landeis, Sheriff for Sioux County, Respondent.,
2003 WL 22977899, *22977899+ (Appellate Petition, Motion and Filing) (U.S.
Dec 05, 2003) Petition for a Writ of Certiorari (NO. 03-829) HN: 2,8,10
(S.Ct.)
1114 In Re: Fred RIGGS, et al., 2003 WL 22428213, *22428213+ (Appellate Petition,
Motion and Filing) (U.S. May 28, 2003) Petition for Writ of Mandamus and
Prohibition (NO. 02-1774) " HN: 23 (S.Ct.)
1115 LOBO GAMING, INC., Petitioner, v PIT RIVER TRIBE OF CALIFORNIA, and
Pit River Gaming Commission, Respondents., 2003 WL 21698040, *21698040+
(Appellate Petition, Motion and Filing) (U.S. Jan 08, 2003) Respondents' Brief
in Opposition (NO. 02-865) " HN: 12 (S.Ct.)
1116 OMAHA PUBLIC POWER DISTRICT, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES OF
AMERICA., 2002 WL 32135110, *32135110+ (Appellate Petition, Motion and
Filing) (U.S. May 07, 2002) Reply Brief for the Petitioner (NO. 01-1398)
1117 Roberta BUGENING, Petitioner, v. Hoopa Valley TRIBE; The Hoopa Valley
Tribal Council; The Tribal Court of the Hoopa Valley Tribal Reservation; Byron
Nelson, Jr., Honorable Judge of the Hoopa Valley Tribal Court; Merv George,
Chairman of the Hoopa Valley Tribal Council, Respondents., 2002 WL
32136062, *32136062+ (Appellate Petition, Motion and Filing) (U.S. Feb 08,
2002) Brief Amicus Curiae of the States of Idaho, Alabama, Alaska, Florida,
Indiana, New Mexico, Nevada, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Dakota,
Utah and Wyoming In Support of Petitioner (NO. 01-900) " HN:
8,23,24 (S.Ct.)
1118 Roberta BUGENIG, Petitioner, v. Hoopa Valley TRIBE; the Hoopa Valley Tribal
Council; the Tribal Court of the Hoopa Valley Tribal Reservation; Byron Nelson,
Jr., Honorable Judge of the Hoopa Valley Tribal Court; Merv George, Chairman
of the Hoopa Valley Tribal Council, Respondents., 2001 WL 34117571,

*34117571+ (Appellate Petition, Motion and Filing) (U.S. Dec 10, 2001) Peti-
tion for Writ of Certiorari (NO. 01-900) " HN: 33 (S.Ct.)
1119 PENOBSCOT NATION; Passamaquoddy Tribe; Barry L. Dana, in his capacity
as Chief of the Penobscot Nation; Richard M. Doyle, in his capacity as Governor
of the Passamaquoddy Tribe; and Richard Stevens, in his capacity as Governor of
the Passamaquoddy Tribe, Petitioners, v. GREAT NORTHERN PAPER, INC.;
Georgia-Pacific Corporation; International Paper Company; and the State of
Maine, Respondents., 2001 WL 34115463, *34115463+ (Appellate Petition, Mo-
tion and Filing) (U.S. Aug 29, 2001) Petition for Writ of Certiorari (NO.
01-381) HN: 8,10 (S.Ct.)
1120 David Jon GOTCHNIK, et al., Petitioners, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.,
Apr 2001) Brief for the United States in Opposition (NO. 00-1182)
1121 VENETIAN CASINO RESORT, L.L.C., Petitioner, v. LOCAL JOINT EXEC-
UTIVE BOARD OF LAS VEGAS, et al., Respondents., 2001 WL 34116727,
*34116727+ (Appellate Petition, Motion and Filing) (U.S. 2001) Respondent
Local Joint Executive Board of Las Vegas' Opposition to Petition for a Writ
1122 SOUTH FORK BAND OF THE TE-MOAK TRIBE OF WESTERN SHOS-
HONE INDIANS OF NEVADA; Marvin McDade, in his capacity as Chairman of
the South Fork Band Council, Petitioners, v. SIXTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA, in and for the County of Humboldt, and
the Honorable Richard A. Wagner, District Judge, Respondents, State Engineer
of the State of Nevada and Water Commissioners of the Sixth Judicial District
Court, Real Parties In Interest., 2000 WL 34000788, *34000788+ (Appellate Pe-
tition, Motion and Filing) (U.S. Nov 22, 2000) Petition for Writ of Certiorari
(NO. 00-838) HN: 10 (S.Ct.)
1123 ATKINSON TRADING COMPANY, INC., Petitioner, v. Joe SHIRLEY, Jr.,
Victor Joe, Derrick B. Watchman, and Elroy Drake, Members of the Navajo Tax
Commission; and Steven C. Begay, Executive Director of the Navajo Tax Com-
mission, Respondents., 2000 WL 33979509, *33979509+ (Appellate Petition,
Motion and Filing) (U.S. Nov 01, 2000) Reply Brief of Petitioner (NO. 00-454)
" HN: 8,23,24 (S.Ct.)
Commission, and Steven C. Begay, Executive Director of the Navajo Tax Com-
Motion and Filing) (U.S. Oct 23, 2000) Response to Petition for Writ of Certi-
orari (NO. 00-454) " HN: 2,5,8 (S.Ct.)

Motion and Filing) (U.S. Oct 23, 2000) Brief of Amicus Curiae States of South
Dakota, Alabama, Colorado, Florida, Michigan, Mississippi, Montana, Utah
and Wyoming in Support of Petitioner (NO. 00-454) HN: 2 (S.Ct.)
Motion and Filing) (U.S. Oct 23, 2000) Brief of Amicus Curiae Interstate Nat-
ural Gas Association of America in Support of the Petition (NO. 00-454) "
HN: 8,9,24 (S.Ct.)
1127 THE CHICKASAW NATION and the Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma, Petitioners,
v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent., 2000 WL 33979506,
*33979506+ (Appellate Petition, Motion and Filing) (U.S. Oct 03, 2000) Petition
for a Writ of Certiorari (NO. 00-507) HN: 20 (S.Ct.)
1128 C&L ENTERPRISES, INC., Petitioner, v. CITIZEN POTAWATOMI NATION,
Respondent., 2000 WL 33976604, *33976604+ (Appellate Petition, Motion and
Filing) (U.S. Sep 22, 2000) Respondent's Brief in Opposition to Petition for
Writ of Certiorari (NO. 00-292) HN: 24 (S.Ct.)
Motion and Filing) (U.S. Sep 22, 2000) Petition for Writ of Certiorari (NO.
00-454) " HN: 24,25 (S.Ct.)
1130 STATE OF NEVADA; William Molini; Rich Ellington; Michael Spencer; Bill
Fitzmorris, Petitioners, v. Floyd HICKS; Tribal Court in and for the Fallon
Paiute-Shoshone Tribes; Joseph Van Walraven, Hon., Respondents., 2000 WL
33979702, *33979702+ (Appellate Petition, Motion and Filing) (U.S. Jul 12,
2000) Brief of Respondents the Tribal Court in and for the Fallon Paiute-
Shoshone Tribes and the Honorable Joseph Van Walraven in Opposition to
Petition for Writ of Certiorari (NO. 99-1994) " HN: 21 (S.Ct.)
1131 STATE OF NEVADA; William Molini; Rich Ellington; Michael Spencer; Bill
Fitzmorris, Petitioners, v. Floyd HICKS; Tribal Court in and for the Fallon
Paiute-Shoshone Tribes; Joseph Van Walraven, Hon., Respondents., 2000 WL
33979596, *33979596+ (Appellate Petition, Motion and Filing) (U.S. Jun 05,
2000) Petition for Writ of Certiorari (NO. 99-1994) " HN: 8,23,24
(S.Ct.)
1132 Estates of Red WOLF and Bull Tail, Valerie Red Wolf, Gladys Red Wolf, Randy
Red Wolf, Dorrie Bull Tail and Dewey Bull Tail, Petitioners, v. BURLINGTON
NORTHERN RAILROAD COMPANY, Respondent., 2000 WL 34014264,
*34014264+ (Appellate Petition, Motion and Filing) (U.S. Apr 04, 2000) Re-
spondent Crow Tribe's Brief in Support (NO. 99-1521) HN: 5,8 (S.Ct.)
1133 TRIBAL GOVERNING BOARD OF THE LAC COURTE OREILLES BAND

OF LAKE SUPERIOR CHIPPEWA INDIANS, Petitioner, v. Sandra THOMAS,
et al., Respondents., 2000 WL 34014244, *34014244+ (Appellate Petition, Mo-
tion and Filing) (U.S. Mar 13, 2000) Petition for Writ of Certiorari (NO.
99-1520) " HN: 1,5 (S.Ct.)
1134 MICCOSUKEE TRIBE OF INDIANS OF FLORIDA, Billy Cypress, Jasper Nel-
son, Jimmie Bert, Max Billie, Henry Bert and Dexter Lehtinen, Petitioners, v.
TAMIAMI PARTNERS, LTD. by and through its general partner, Tamiami De-
velopment Corporation, Respondents., 1999 WL 33639628, *33639628+
(Appellate Petition, Motion and Filing) (U.S. Dec 14, 1999) Petition for A Writ
1135 THE GOVERNMENT OF GUAM, ex rel. The Guam Economic Development
Authority, Petitioner, v. THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, The Depart-
ment of Defense, The Department of the Navy, The Department of the Air Force,
The Department of the Interior, The United States Fish and Wildlife Service, and
the General Services Administration, Respondents., 1999 WL 33632637,
*33632637+ (Appellate Petition, Motion and Filing) (U.S. Nov 10, 1999) Peti-
tion for Writ of Certiorari (NO. 99-818) HN: 10,11 (S.Ct.)
1136 Bruce JOHNSON, Petitioner, v. GILA RIVER INDIAN COMMUNITY, Re-
spondent., 1999 WL 33640788, *33640788+ (Appellate Petition, Motion and Fil-
ing) (U.S. Jul 21, 1999) Petition for Writ of Certiorari (NO. 99-162) HN:
23 (S.Ct.)
1137 COURT OF INDIAN OFFENSES OF THE CHOCTAW NATION and James
Wolfe, Magistrate, Petitioners, v. Douglas DRY, Rosie Burlison, and Juanita Mc-
Connell, Respondents., 1999 WL 33640197, *33640197+ (Appellate Petition,
Motion and Filing) (U.S. May 21, 1999) Petition for Writ of Certiorari (NO.
98-1879)
1138 YANKEE ATOMIC ELECTRIC COMPANY, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES
OF AMERICA, Respondent., 1998 WL 34103051, *34103051 (Appellate Peti-
tion, Motion and Filing) (U.S. Jan 12, 1998) Brief Amicus Curiae of the Na-
tional Defense Industrial Association in Support of Petitioner (NO. 97-801)
HN: 18,21 (S.Ct.)
1139 CENTURY OFFSHORE MANAGEMENT CORPORATION, Petitioner, v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent., 1997 WL 33550113,
*33550113+ (Appellate Petition, Motion and Filing) (U.S. Dec 23, 1997) Brief of
the Jicarilla Apache Tribe as Amicus Curiae in Support of Petition for Writ
of Certiorari (NO. 97-706) HN: 17,20,28 (S.Ct.)
1140 KERR-McGEE CORPORATION and CYPRUS FOOTE MINERAL COM-
PANY, Petitioners, v. Kee Tom FARLEY, Individually and on Behalf of the Es-
tate of Lucy K. Farley, Carmelita Farley Joe, and Harold Kady, Sr., Individually
and on Behalf of the Estate of Julia Mae Kady, Respondents., 1997 WL
33550101, *33550101+ (Appellate Petition, Motion and Filing) (U.S. Dec 22,
1997) Brief Amici Curiae of the Montana School Boards Association and
D.H. Blattner & Sons, Inc. in Support of the Petition (NO. 97-705) HN: 8

(S.Ct.)
1141 KERR-McGEE CORPORATION and CYPRUS FOOTE MINERAL COM-
PANY, Petitioners, v. Kee Tom FARLEY, Individually and on behalf of the Es-
tate of Lucy K. Farley, Carmelita Farley Joe and Harold Kady, Sr., Individually
and on behalf of the Estate of Julia Mae Kady, Respondents., 1997 WL
1997) Respondents' Brief in Opposition (NO. 97-705) " HN: 23 (S.Ct.)
1142 State of South Dakota, Gary Viken, Secretary of Revenue, Petitioners, v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, on Behalf of the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe
and Its Members, and Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe, and Dewey County, South
Dakota, John Alley, County Treasurer, Ziebach County, South Dakota, Virginia
Hertel, County Treasurer, Respondents., 1997 WL 33557314, *33557314+
(Appellate Petition, Motion and Filing) (U.S. Oct 14, 1997) Brief for Respond-
ents in Opposition to Petition for Writ of Certiorari. (NO. 97-276)
1143 THE KIOWA TRIBE OF OKLAHOMA a federally recognized Indian Tribe, Pe-
titioner, v. AIRCRAFT EQUIPMENT COMPANY an Oklahoma Partnership, et
al., Respondents., 1997 WL 33557532, *33557532+ (Appellate Petition, Motion
and Filing) (U.S. Oct 06, 1997) Brief in Opposition to Petition for Writ of Cer-
tiorari (NO. 97-216) HN: 5,10 (S.Ct.)
1144 THE KIOWA TRIBE OF OKLAHOMA, a federally recognized Indian Tribe, Pe-
titioner, v. AIRCRAFT EQUIPMENT COMPANY, an Oklahoma Partnership, et
and Filing) (U.S. Aug 27, 1997) Brief in Opposition to Petition for Writ of
1145 CASS COUNTY, Minnesota; Sharon K. Anderson, in her official capacity as
Cass County Auditor; Marge L. Daniels, in her official capacity as Cass County
Treasurer; Steve Kuha, in his official capacity as Cass County Assessor; James
Demgen, in his official capacity as Cass County Commissioner; John Stranne, in
his official capacity as Cass County Commissioner; Glen Witham, in his official
capacity as Cass County Commissioner; Erwin Ostlund, in his official capacity,
Aug 07, 1997) Respondent's Conditional Cross Petition (NO. 97-235)
HN: 1,20 (S.Ct.)
1146 LEECH LAKE BAND OF CHIPPEWA INDIANS, Petitioner, v. CASS
COUNTY, Minnesota; Sharon K. Anderson, in her official capacity as Cass
County Auditor; Marge L. Daniels, in her official capacity as Cass County Treas-
urer; Steve Kuha, in his official capacity as Cass County Assessor; James Dem-
gen, in his official capacity as Cass County Commissioner; John Stranne, in his
official capacity as Cass County Commissioner; Glen Witham, in his official ca-
pacity as Cass County, 1997 WL 33557991, *33557991+ (Appellate Petition,
Motion and Filing) (U.S. Aug 07, 1997) Conditional Cross Petition (NO.
97-235) HN: 1,20 (S.Ct.)
1147 THE KIOWA TRIBE OF OKLAHOMA, a federally recognized Indian Tribe, Pe-

titioner, v. AIRCRAFT EQUIPMENT COMPANY an Oklahoma Partnership, et
and Filing) (U.S. Jul 30, 1997) Petition for a Writ of Certiorari (NO. 97-216)
HN: 1,5 (S.Ct.)
1148 Sylvia COHEN, Petitioner, v. LITTLE SIX, INC., a foreign corporation, d/b/a
Mystic Lake Casino, Respondent., 1997 WL 33562070, *33562070+ (Appellate
Petition, Motion and Filing) (U.S. Jul 09, 1997) Respondent's Brief in Opposi-
tion to Petition for Writ of Certiorari (NO. 96-1962) HN: 23 (S.Ct.)
1149 State of South Carolina; David M. Beasley, Governor of the State of South Caro-
lina; Douglas E. Bryant, Commissioner of the South Carolina Department of
Health and Environmental Control; South Carolina Department of Health and En-
vironmental Control; South Carolina Board of Health and Environmental Control,
Petitioners, v. EVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGY COUNCIL, Respondent.,
Jun 09, 1997) Petitioners' Supplemental Brief (NO. 96-1102) HN: 31
(S.Ct.)
1150 SOUTH CAROLINA, et al., Petitioners, v. ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNO-
LOGY COUNCIL., 1997 WL 33561356, *33561356+ (Appellate Petition, Mo-
tion and Filing) (U.S. May 30, 1997) Brief for the United States as Amicus
Curiae (NO. 96-1102) " HN: 30 (S.Ct.)
1151 STATE OF ALASKA, Petitioner, v. NATIVE VILLAGE OF VENETIE TRIBAL
GOVERNMENT, et al., Respondents., 1997 WL 33484634, *33484634+
(Appellate Petition, Motion and Filing) (U.S. May 20, 1997) Respondents' Brief
in Opposition (NO. 96-1577) " HN: 2 (S.Ct.)
(Appellate Petition, Motion and Filing) (U.S. May 20, 1997) Brief of the Legis-
lature of the State of Alaska and the Council of State Governments-West as
Amici Curiae in Support of Petitioner (NO. 96-1577) " HN: 1,7 (S.Ct.)
1153 STATE OF SOUTH DAKOTA, Petitioner, v. YANKTON SIOUX TRIBE, a fed-
erally recognized tribe of Indians, and its individual members; Darrell E.
Drapeau, individually, a member of the Yankton Sioux Tribe, Respondents,
Southern Missouri Waste Management District, a nonprofit corporation, Re-
spondent., 1997 WL 33485561, *33485561+ (Appellate Petition, Motion and Fil-
ing) (U.S. May 07, 1997) Motion to File Amicus Curiae Brief and Brief of the
Montana Association of Counties for the Reservation Counties in Support of
Petitioner's Petition for Writ of Certiorari (NO. 95-1581) HN: 8,12,16
(S.Ct.)
(Appellate Petition, Motion and Filing) (U.S. Apr 04, 1997) Petition for a Writ
of Certiorari (NO. 96-1577) HN: 7,11 (S.Ct.)
1155 Carl PEASE, Petitioner, v. YELLOWSTONE COUNTY, a political subdivision

of the State of Montana, Respondent., 1997 WL 33561817, *33561817+
(Appellate Petition, Motion and Filing) (U.S. Mar 17, 1997) Reply to Brief in
Opposition (NO. 96-1204) HN: 21 (S.Ct.)
1156 COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Petitioner, v. TEXACO INC.
AND SUBSIDIARIES, Respondents., 1997 WL 33561441, *33561441+
(Appellate Petition, Motion and Filing) (U.S. Mar 14, 1997) Respondents' Brief
in Opposition (NO. 96-1107) " HN: 14,18,21 (S.Ct.)
1157 Jill GAVLE, Petitioner, v. LITTLE SIX, INC., A Foreign Corporation d/b/a Mys-
tic Lake Casino, et al., Respondents., 1997 WL 33561300, *33561300+
(Appellate Petition, Motion and Filing) (U.S. Mar 03, 1997) Respondent's Brief
in Opposition to Petition for Writ of Certiorari (NO. 96-1215) HN: 1,23
(S.Ct.)
1158 State of South Carolina; David M. Beasley, Governor of the State of South Caro-
lina; Douglas E. Bryant, Commissioner of the South Carolina Department of
Health and Environmental Control; South Carolina Department of Health and En-
vironmental Control; South Carolina Board of Health and Environmental Control,
Petitioners, v. ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGY COUNCIL, on behalf of it-
self and its members, Respondent., 1997 WL 33561696, *33561696+ (Appellate
Petition, Motion and Filing) (U.S. Feb 10, 1997) Respondent's Brief in Opposi-
tion (NO. 96-1102) HN: 6,24,34 (S.Ct.)
1159 MUSTANG FUEL CORPORATION, et al., Petitioners, v. Viola HATCH, et al.,
Respondents. WARD PETROLEUM CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. Juanita
LEARNED, et al., Respondents., 1996 WL 33421977, *33421977+ (Appellate
Petition, Motion and Filing) (U.S. Nov 21, 1996) Petition for Writ of Certiorari
(NO. 96-853) " HN: 8 (S.Ct.)
1160 TONAWANDA BAND OF SENECA INDIANS; Bernard Parker, a/k/a Ganoge-
hdaho; Kervin Jonathan, a/k/a Skongataigo; Emerson Webster, a/k/a Gauhnahgoi;
Darren Jimerson, a/k/a Sohjeahnohous; Harley Gordon, a/k/a Gah-En-Keh; James
Logan; and Darwin Hill, Petitioners, v. Peter L. POODRY, David C. Peters,
Susan Lafromboise, John A. Redeye, Stonehorse Lone Goeman, Respondents.,
Oct 17, 1996) Petition for Writ of Certiorari (NO. 96-609) HN: 1,23
(S.Ct.)
1161 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, et al., Petitioners, v.
State of South Dakota and City of Oacoma, 1996 WL 33467713, *33467713+
(Appellate Petition, Motion and Filing) (U.S. Jul 09, 1996) Brief of Amicus
Curiae San Manuel Band of Mission Indians in Support of Petition for A
Writ of Certiorari (NO. 95-1956) " HN: 34 (S.Ct.)
1162 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR, et al., Petitioners, v. State of
South Dakota and City of Oacoma, Respondents., 1996 WL 33467725,
*33467725+ (Appellate Petition, Motion and Filing) (U.S. Jul 05, 1996) Brief
Amici Curiae of the Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma, Chippewa-Cree Tribe of
the Rocky Boy's Reservation, Kenaitze Indian Tribe, Mashantucket Pequot

Tribe, National Congress of American Indians, ... (NO. 95-1956) HN: 8
(S.Ct.)
1163 The Honorable William STRATE, Associate Tribal Judge of the Tribal Court of
the Three Affiliated Tribes of the Fort Berthold Indian Reservation; The Tribal
Court of the Three Affiliated Tribes of the Fort Berthold Indian Reservation;
Lyndon Benedict Fredericks; Kenneth Lee Fredericks; Paul Jonas Fredericks;
Hans Christian Fredericks; Jeb Pius Fredericks; Gisela Fredericks, Petitioners, v.
A-1 CONTRACTORS; Lyle Stockert, Respondents., 1996 WL 33413776,
*33413776+ (Appellate Petition, Motion and Filing) (U.S. May 16, 1996) Peti-
tion for a Writ of Certiorari (NO. 95-1872) " HN: 21 (S.Ct.)
1164 Ann M. VENEMAN, Secretary, California Department of Food and Agriculture;
Islam Siddiqui, Assistant Director, California Division of Plant Industry; State of
California, Petitioners, v. PACIFIC MERCHANT SHIPPING ASSOCIATION,
Filing) (U.S. Apr 29, 1996) Respondent's Brief in Opposition (NO. 95-1568)
HN: 31 (S.Ct.)
1165 Ann M. VENEMAN, Secretary, California Department of Food and Agriculture;
Islam Siddiqui, Assistant Director, California Division of Plant Industry; State of
California, Petitioners, v. PACIFIC MERCHANT SHIPPING ASSOCIATION,
Filing) (U.S. Mar 28, 1996) Petition for Writ of Certiorari (NO. 95-1568) "
HN: 31 (S.Ct.)
1166 Mary Jane WILSON, Petitioner, v. Thomas David MARCHINGTON; Inland Em-
pire Shows, Inc., Respondents., 1996 WL 33419836, *33419836+ (Appellate Pe-
tition, Motion and Filing) (U.S. Feb 17, 1996) Petition for a Writ of Certiorari
(NO. 97-1348) HN: 2,7 (S.Ct.)
1167 MUSTANG FUEL CORPORATION, et al., Petitioners, v. Viola HATCH, et al.,
Respondents. WARD PETROLEUM CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. Juanita
LEARNED, et al., Respondents., 1996 WL 33439697, *33439697+ (Appellate
Petition, Motion and Filing) (U.S. Feb 03, 1996) Respondents' Brief in Opposi-
tion to Petition for Writ of Certiorari (NO. 96-853) " HN: 23,24,25
(S.Ct.)
1168 MURPHEY FAVRE, INC., Washington Mutual Savings Bank, Gregory Ondrak,
James Royan and Douglas Springer, Petitioners, v. Paul M. LYNN, on behalf of
himself and all similarly situated person, and the District Court of the Fourth Ju-
dicial District of the State of Montana, in and for the County of Missoula, the
Honorable John S. Henson, Presiding Judge, Respondents., 1996 WL 33467984,
*33467984+ (Appellate Petition, Motion and Filing) (U.S. Feb 01, 1996) Brief in
Opposition (NO. 95-995) HN: 23 (S.Ct.)
1169 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Petitioner, v. WINSTAR CORPORATION,
et al., 1996 WL 33413795, *33413795+ (Appellate Petition, Motion and Filing)
(U.S. Jan 10, 1996) Reply Brief for the Petitioner (NO. 95-865) HN: 21
(S.Ct.)

tion and Filing) (U.S. Dec 22, 1995) Brief of Glendale Federal Bank, FSB in
Opposition to Petition for a Writ of Certiorari (NO. 95-865) " HN:
17,24,36 (S.Ct.)
tion and Filing) (U.S. Dec 21, 1995) Brief of Winstar Corporation and the
Statesman Group, Inc., et al., in Opposition to Petition for Writ of Certiorari
(NO. 95-865) " HN: 17,24 (S.Ct.)
1172 Bruce WILLINGHAM and Tom Gray, Petitioners, v. SAC AND FOX NATION,
Filing) (U.S. May 15, 1995) Petition for Writ of Certiorari (NO. 94-1887) "
HN: 8 (S.Ct.)
1173 OKLAHOMA TAX COMMISSION, Petitioner, v. CHICKASAW NATION.,
Mar 27, 1995) Brief for the United States as Amicus Curiae Supporting Re-
spondent (NO. 94-771)
1174 CONFEDERATED TRIBES OF THE COLVILLE RESERVATION, Petitioner,
v. THE YAKIMA INDIAN NATION, The Confederated Tribes and Bands of the
Warm Springs Reservation of Oregon, The Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla
Reservation, The Nez Perce Tribe of Idaho, Respondents., 1995 WL 17048960,
*17048960+ (Appellate Petition, Motion and Filing) (U.S. Mar 22, 1995) Peti-
tion for a Writ of Certiorari (NO. 94-1567)
1175 DUNCAN ENERGY COMPANY, NBB Oil & Gas Partners (U.S.A.), Amerada.
Hess Corporation, Tyrex Oil Company and Turtle Mountain Gas & Oil, Inc., Pe-
titioners, v. THE THREE AFFILIATED TRIBES OF THE FORT BERTHOLD
RESERVATION; Three Affiliated Tribes Tribal Business Council; Three Affili-
ated Tribes Tax Commission; Wilbur D. Wilkinson, Chairman, Tribal Business
Council; Joseph J. Walker, Tax Commissioner; and Marcus Wells, Jr., Director
Tribal Employment Rights, 1994 WL 16100170, *16100170+ (Appellate Peti-
tion, Motion and Filing) (U.S. Nov 28, 1994) Brief of Amici Curiae States of
North Dakota, Alabama, Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Montana, Nevada,
South Dakota, Utah and Wyoming in Support of Petition for Writ of Certi-
orari (NO. 94-689)
1176 DUNCAN ENERGY COMPANY, NBB Oil & Gas Partners (U.S.A.), Amerada
Hess Corporation, Tyrex Oil Company and Turtle Mountain Gas & Oil, Inc., Pe-
titioners, v. THE THREE AFFILIATED TRIBES OF THE FORT BERTHOLD
RESERVATION; Three Affiliated Tribes Tribal Business Council; Three Affili-
ated Tribes Tax Commission; Wilbur D. Wilkinson, Chairman, Tribal Business
Council; Joseph J. Walker, Tax Commissioner; and Marcus Wells, Jr., Director,
Tribal Employment Rights, 1994 WL 16042767, *16042767+ (Appellate Peti-
tion, Motion and Filing) (U.S. Oct 17, 1994) Petition for Writ of Certiorari
(NO. 94-689) HN: 8 (S.Ct.)

1177 Lynette HINSHAW, Petitioner, v. Gloria S. MAHLER; Kenneth J. Mahler, Indi-
vidually and as Personal Representatives of The Estate of Christian Devon
Mahler, Deceased, Respondents, Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes of the
Flathead Nation, Intervenor-Respondents., 1994 WL 16100033, *16100033+
(Appellate Petition, Motion and Filing) (U.S. Oct 14, 1994) Brief for Interven-
or-Respondents in Opposition to Writ of Certiorari (NO. 94-501) HN: 10
(S.Ct.)
1178 Lynette HINSHAW, Petitioner, v. Gloria S. MAHLER; Kenneth J. Mahler, Indi-
vidually and as Personal Representatives of the Estate of Christian Devon
Mahler, Deceased, Respondents, Confederated Salish & Kootenai Tribes of the
Flathead Nation, Intervenor/Respondent., 1994 WL 16100034, *16100034+
(Appellate Petition, Motion and Filing) (U.S. Oct 13, 1994) Brief in Opposition
(NO. 94-501) " HN: 21 (S.Ct.)
1179 Ross MIDDLEMIST, Wayne W. Maughan, Flathead Joint Board of Control, Peti-
tioners, v. SECRETARY OF THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF IN-
TERIOR, Bruce Babbitt; Director of the Bureau of Indian Affairs, Portland Area,
Stanley M. Speaks; Superintendent of the Bia Flathead Agency, Ernest Moran, in
their official capacities; Members of the Tribal Council of the Confederated
Salish and Kootenai Tribes, Michael Pablo, Sonny Morigeau, Louis Adams, Hank
Baylor, Fred, 1994 WL 16043894, *16043894+ (Appellate Petition, Motion and
Filing) (U.S. Jul 05, 1994) Petition for Writ of Certiorari (NO. 94-42)
HN: 8 (S.Ct.)
1180 PARKRIDGE INVESTORS LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, by Harold Mortimer,
David Mortimer, and John Phelps, General Partners, Petitioner, v. FARMERS
HOME ADMINISTRATION, an Agency of the United States Department of Ag-
riculture, Respondent., 1994 WL 16099564, *16099564+ (Appellate Petition,
Motion and Filing) (U.S. Apr 07, 1994) Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the
United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit (NO. 931588)
1181 David P. SCHMUCK, Petitioner, v. State of Washington, Respondent., 1993 WL
13076337, *13076337+ (Appellate Petition, Motion and Filing) (U.S. Sep 24,
1993) Respondent's Brief in Opposition (NO. 93-242) HN: 23 (S.Ct.)
1182 David P. SCHMUCK, Petitioner, v. The State of Washington, Respondent., 1993
WL 13076338, *13076338+ (Appellate Petition, Motion and Filing) (U.S. Sep
24, 1993) Brief for the Suquamish Indian Tribe as Amicus Curiae in Support
of Respondent (NO. 93-242) HN: 23 (S.Ct.)
1183 Ross MIDDLEMIST, Wayne W. Maughan, Flathead Joint Board of Control, Peti-
tioners, v. SECRETARY OF THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF IN-
TERIOR, Bruce Babbitt; Director of the Bureau of Indian Affairs, Portland Area,
Stanley M. Speaks; Superintendent of the Bia Flathead Agency, Ernest Moran, in
their official capacities; Members of the Tribal Council of the Confederated
Salish and Kootenai Tribes, Michael Pablo, Sonny Morigeau, Louis Adams, Hank
Baylor, Fred, 1993 WL 13076861, *13076861+ (Appellate Petition, Motion and
Filing) (U.S. May 03, 1993) Petition for Writ of Certiorari (NO. 92-1757)
HN: 8 (S.Ct.)

1184 MADERA IRRIGATION DISTRICT, Petitioner, v. Lawrence F. HANCOCK, et
al., Respondents., 1993 WL 13076836, *13076836 (Appellate Petition, Motion
and Filing) (U.S. Apr 28, 1993) Petition (NO. 92-1727) " HN: 18,21 (S.Ct.)
1185 CIRCLE NATIVE COMMUNITY, Petitioner, v. State of Alaska, Department of
Health and Social Services, Respondent., 1993 WL 13076724, *13076724+
(Appellate Petition, Motion and Filing) (U.S. Mar 18, 1993) Petition for Writ of
1186 SOUTH DAKOTA, Petitioner, v. Gregg BOURLAND, etc., et al., 1992 WL
1992) Brief for the United States as Amicus Curiae Supporting Respondents
(NO. 91-2051) HN: 8,10,23 (S.Ct.)
1187 Jack F. KEMP, Secretary of the United States Department of Housing and Urban
Development, et al., Petitioners, v. ALPINE RIDGE GROUP, et al., 1992 WL
12012171, *12012171+ (Appellate Petition, Motion and Filing) (U.S. Sep 25,
1992) Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals
for the Ninth Circuit (NO. 92-551) HN: 18,20,21 (S.Ct.)
1188 Jess Wesley CRAWFORD; Diane La Plante; and Rodney Lane, Respondents, v.
GENUINE PARTS CO., INC., a Georgia corporation; and Echin Inc., formerly
Echlin Manufacturing Company, a Connecticut corporation, Petitioners., 1991
WL 11177557, *11177557+ (Appellate Petition, Motion and Filing) (U.S. Dec
23, 1991) Petition (NO. 91-1037) " HN: 8,10 (S.Ct.)
1189 COUNTY OF YAKIMA, et al., Petitioners, v. CONFEDERATED TRIBES AND
BANDS OF THE YAKIMA NATION. Confederated Tribes and Bands of the
Yakima Nation, Cross-Petitioner, v. County of Yakima, et al., 1991 WL
11009207, *1+ (Appellate Petition, Motion and Filing) (U.S. Aug 22, 1991) Brief
for the United States as Amicus Curiae Supporting Respond-
ent%61Cross-Petitioner (NO. 90-408, 90-577) HN: 25 (S.Ct.)
1190 TRAPPER MINING, INC., et al., Petitioners, v. Manuel LUJAN, Jr., Secretary of
the Interior, et al., 1991 WL 11178389, *11178389+ (Appellate Petition, Motion
and Filing) (U.S. Aug 15, 1991) Brief for the United States in Opposition (NO.
90-1940) HN: 19,21 (S.Ct.)
1191 Joseph FLUENT, et al., Petitioners, v. SALAMANCA INDIAN LEASE AU-
THORITY, et al., Respondents., 1991 WL 11178337, *11178337+ (Appellate Pe-
tition, Motion and Filing) (U.S. Jul 10, 1991) Opposition of Respondent Seneca
Nation of Indians to Petition for Writ of Certiorari (NO. 90-1889) " HN:
23 (S.Ct.)
1192 THE ALABAMA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT;
Leigh Pegues, Director of the Alabama Department of Environmental Manage-
ment; and Guy Hunt, Governor of Alabama, Petitioners, v. NATIONAL SOLID
WASTES MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION; and Chemical Waste Management,
Inc., Respondents., 1991 WL 11178188, *11178188+ (Appellate Petition, Motion
and Filing) (U.S. Jun 05, 1991) Brief of the State of South Carolina as Amicus
Curiae in Support of Petitioners (NO. 90-1718) " HN: 31 (S.Ct.)

1193 COUNTY OF YAKIMA, et al., Petitioners, v. CONFEDERATED TRIBES AND
BANDS OF THE YAKIMA NATION. Confederated Tribes and Bands of the
Yakima Nation, Cross-Petitioner, v. County of Yakima, et al., 1991 WL
11009206, *1+ (Appellate Petition, Motion and Filing) (U.S. Apr 10, 1991) Brief
for the United States as Amicus Curiae (NO. 90-408, 90-577) HN: 25
(S.Ct.)
1194 FMC, Petitioner, v. Shoshone-Bannock TRIBES, et al., Respondents., 1991 WL
11176580, *11176580+ (Appellate Petition, Motion and Filing) (U.S. Jan 17,
1991) Petition for a Writ of Certiorari (NO. 90-1146) "
1195 NAVAJO TAX COMMISSION, Petitioner, v. THE PITTSBURG & MIDWAY
COAL MINING COMPANY, Respondent., 1990 WL 10058529, *10058529+
(Appellate Petition, Motion and Filing) (U.S. Oct 18, 1990) Petition (NO.
90-635)
1196 Vielle v. Baisley, 1988 WL 1094789, *1094789+ (Appellate Petition, Motion and
Filing) (U.S. Aug 05, 1988) Petition (NO. 88-220) HN: 21,23 (S.Ct.)
1197 John v. City of Salamanca, 1988 WL 1094710, *1094710+ (Appellate Petition,
Motion and Filing) (U.S. Jul 15, 1988) Petition (NO. 88-84) HN: 9,11
(S.Ct.)
1198 Wilkinson v. Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yaki, 1988 WL 1094075,
*1094075+ (Appellate Petition, Motion and Filing) (U.S. Apr 11, 1988) Petition
(NO. 87-1697)
1199 Totus v. Holly, 1987 WL 954964, *954964+ (Appellate Petition, Motion and Fil-
ing) (U.S. May 30, 1987) Petition (NO. 86-1912)
1200 Oglala Sioux Tribe of the Pine Ridge Indian Reservatio, 1985 WL 695219,
*695219+ (Appellate Petition, Motion and Filing) (U.S. Nov 13, 1985) Petition
(NO. 85-945) " HN: 20 (S.Ct.)
1201 Sac and Fox Tribe of Indians of Oklahoma v. Apex Const, 1985 WL 696441,
*696441+ (Appellate Petition, Motion and Filing) (U.S. Aug 07, 1985) Petition
(NO. 85-229)
1202 BANK OF GUAM, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES, Defendant-Ap-
pellee., 2009 WL 5161114, *5161114+ (Appellate Petition, Motion and Filing)
(Fed.Cir. Dec 07, 2009) Defendant-Appellee's Response to Combined Peti-
tions for Panel Rehearing and Rehearing En Banc (NO. 2008-5078) HN:
19,20 (S.Ct.)
1203 CENTEX CORPORATION and CTX Holding Company, Plaintiffs-Crass Appel-
lants, v. UNITED STATES, Defendant-Appellant., 2005 WL 4146729,
*4146729+ (Appellate Petition, Motion and Filing) (Fed.Cir. Apr 06, 2005) Re-
sponse to Petition for Rehearing and Rehearing En Banc (Corrected) (NO.
03-5087, 03-5095) " HN: 17,20 (S.Ct.)
1204 CENTEX CORPORATION and Ctx Holding Company, Plaintiffs-
Cross-Appellants, v. THE UNITED STATES, Defendant-Appellant., 2005 WL
3968486, *3968486+ (Appellate Petition, Motion and Filing) (Fed.Cir. Mar 17,
2005) Petition For Rehearing and Suggestion for Rehearing En Banc of De-

fendant-Appellant, the United States (NO. 03-5087, 03-5095) HN: 19,20
(S.Ct.)
1205 PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY, Petitioner, v. FEDERAL EN-
ERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION, Respondent., 2003 WL 25587784,
*25587784+ (Appellate Petition, Motion and Filing) (D.C.Cir. Jan 15, 2003)
Brief for Federal Intervenors Western Area Power Administration and U.S.
Bureau of Reclamation (NO. 02-1002) " HN: 21 (S.Ct.)
1206 YUKON-KUSKOKWIM HEALTH CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. NATIONAL
LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Respondent., 2000 WL 35578256, *35578256+
(Appellate Petition, Motion and Filing) (D.C.Cir. Jun 30, 2000) Reply Brief of
Petitioner (NO. 99-1440) HN: 23 (S.Ct.)
1207 ARIZONA PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY et al., Petitioners, v. UNITED
STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, Respondent., 1999
WL 34833636, *34833636+ (Appellate Petition, Motion and Filing) (D.C.Cir.
Nov 19, 1999) Final Brief of Intervenors Gila River Indian Community,
Navajo Nation, Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community and Shoshone-
Bannock Tribes (NO. 98-1196, 98-1203, 98-1206, 98-1207, 98-1208) "
HN: 21 (S.Ct.)
1208 ARIZONA PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY et al., Petitioners, v. UNITED
STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, Respondent., 1999
WL 34833637, *34833637+ (Appellate Petition, Motion and Filing) (D.C.Cir.
Oct 14, 1999) Brief of Intervenors Gila River Indian Community, Navajo Na-
tion, Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community and Shoshone-Bannock
Tribes (NO. 98-1196, 98-1203, 98-1206, 98-1207, 98-1208) " HN: 21
(S.Ct.)
1209 CALIFORNIA STATEWIDE LAW ENFORCEMENT ASSOCIATION, Plaintiff
and Respondent, v. STATE OF CALIFORNIA, Department of Personnel Admin-
istration, Defendant and Appellant., 2011 WL 1495074, *1+ (Appellate Petition,
Motion and Filing) (Cal. Mar 28, 2011) Answer to Petition for Review (NO.
S191200) " HN: 18,21 (S.Ct.)
1210 CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF PROFESSIONAL SCIENTISTS, Petitioner,
Respondent and Appellant, v. Arnold SCHWARZENEGGER, as Governor, etc.,
et al., Defendants and Respondents, Public Employment Relations Board, Inter-
vener and Appellant., 2006 WL 3520917, *3520917 (Appellate Petition, Motion
and Filing) (Cal. May 02, 2006) Answer to Petition for Review (NO. S142606)
1211 CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF PROFESSIONAL SCIENTISTS, Plaintiff,

Respondent, and Appellant, v. Arnold SCHWARZENEGGER, as Governor, etc.,
et al., Defendants and Respondents, Public Employment Relations Board Inter-
vener and Appellant., 2006 WL 3520915, *3520915+ (Appellate Petition, Motion
and Filing) (Cal. Apr 12, 2006) Petition for Review of a Decision of the Court
of Appeal Third Appellate District (NO. S142606)
1212 Reginald TURNER and Steve Guzman, Plaintiffs, Appellants and Respondents,

v. Jeffrey MARTIRE, Michael Turner, and Robert Mezzie, Specially-Appearing
Defendants, Respondents and Petitioners., 2000 WL 34233643, *34233643+
(Appellate Petition, Motion and Filing) (Cal. Aug 22, 2000) Petition for Review
and, Alternatively, Request for Depublication (NO. S090926) " HN:
8,10,12 (S.Ct.)
1213 BURBANK-GLENDALE PASADENA AIRPORT AUTHORITY, Plaintiff and
Petitioner, v. CITY OF BURBANK, Defendant and Respondent., 1998 WL
34284230, *34284230+ (Appellate Petition, Motion and Filing) (Cal. Aug 12,
1998) Respondent City of Burbank's Answering Brief in Opposition to Peti-
tion for Review (NO. S072073)
1214 MIDLAND CENTRAL APPRAISAL DISTRICT, Petitioner, v. BP AMERICA
PRODUCTION COMPANY, Amerada Hess Trading Company, Chevron USA,
Inc., Chevron Texaco Products Company, Chevrontexaco Global Supply and
Trading Company, Teppco Crude Oil, LLC, and Teppco Crude P/L LLC, Re-
spondents., 2009 WL 2134956, *2134956+ (Appellate Petition, Motion and Fil-
ing) (Tex. Jun 29, 2009) Reply to BP America's Response to Petition for Re-
view (NO. 09-0273)
Appellate Briefs
1215 United States of America v. Jicarilla Apache Nation, 2011 WL 661710,
*661710+ (Appellate Brief) (U.S. Feb 22, 2011) Brief for the United States
(NO. 10-382) HN: 24 (S.Ct.)
1216 Madison County v. Oneida Indian Nation of New York, 2010 WL 4973153,
*4973153+ (Appellate Brief) (U.S. Dec 03, 2010) Brief for the Petitioners (NO.
10-72) " HN: 1,8 (S.Ct.)
1217 Hemi Group, LLC v. City of New York, 2009 WL 2172504, *2172504+
(Appellate Brief) (U.S. Jul 17, 2009) Brief for Petitioners (NO. 08-969) "
HN: 1,20,22 (S.Ct.)
1218 United States of America v. Navajo Nation, 2008 WL 5027914, *5027914+
(Appellate Brief) (U.S. Nov 26, 2008) Brief for the United States (NO.
07-1410)
1219 Plains Commerce Bank v. Long Family Land, 2008 WL 742923, *742923+
(Appellate Brief) (U.S. Mar 19, 2008) Brief for the United States as Amicus
Curiae Supporting Respondents (NO. 07-411) " HN: 2 (S.Ct.)
1220 Plains Commerce Bank v. Long Family Land & Cattle Co., Inc., 2008 WL
749303, *749303+ (Appellate Brief) (U.S. Mar 19, 2008) Brief of Amici Curiae
the National Network to End Domestic Violence, Sacred Circle, National Re-
source Center to End Violence Against Native Women, Et Al. in Support of
Respondents (NO. 07-411) HN: 8,10 (S.Ct.)
1221 Plains Commerce Bank v. Long Family Land and Cattle Company, Inc., 2008
WL 782553, *782553+ (Appellate Brief) (U.S. Mar 19, 2008) Brief for Amicus
Curiae Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe in Support of Respondents (NO. 07-411)
HN: 5 (S.Ct.)

WL 795156, *795156+ (Appellate Brief) (U.S. Mar 19, 2008) Brief of National
Congress of American Indians et al. as Amici Curiae in Support of Respond-
ents (NO. 07-411) " HN: 8,10 (S.Ct.)
WL 727816, *727816+ (Appellate Brief) (U.S. Mar 12, 2008) Brief for Re-
spondents (NO. 07-411) " HN: 5 (S.Ct.)
WL 503594, *503594+ (Appellate Brief) (U.S. Feb 20, 2008) Brief Amicus
Curiae of the States of Idaho, Alaska, Florida, Oklahoma, North Dakota,
South Dakota, Utah, Washington, and Wisconsin in Support of Petitioner
(NO. 07-411)
WL 449965, *449965+ (Appellate Brief) (U.S. Feb 14, 2008) Petitioner Plains
Commerce Bank's Brief (NO. 07-411) "
1226 State of New Jersey v. State of Delaware, 2007 WL 4266843, *4266843+
(Appellate Brief) (U.S. Jul 30, 2007) Brief of BP America Inc. and Crown
Landing LLC, as Amicus Curiae, in Support of the State of New Jersey (NO.
134 ORIGINAL) " HN: 19,20,21 (S.Ct.)
1227 State of New Jersey v. State of Delaware, 2005 WL 5949400, *5949400+
(Appellate Brief) (U.S. Nov 08, 2005) Reply Brief and Supplemental Appendix
in Support of Motion to Reopen and for a Supplemental Decree (NO. 134
ORIGINAL) HN: 19,21 (S.Ct.)
(Appellate Brief) (U.S. Aug 15, 2005) Reply Brief for Petitioner (NO. 04-631) "
HN: 30,31 (S.Ct.)
(Appellate Brief) (U.S. Jul 14, 2005) Brief for Respondent (NO. 04-631) "
HN: 1,5,7 (S.Ct.)
(Appellate Brief) (U.S. Jul 14, 2005) Brief of the Inter-Tribal Transportation
Association as Amicus Curiae in Support of Respondent (NO. 04-631) "
HN: 1,5 (S.Ct.)
(Appellate Brief) (U.S. Jul 14, 2005) Brief of Amici Curiae NCAI, Confeder-
ated Tribes of the Warm Springs Indian Reservation, Pueblos of Isleta, San-
dia and Zia, Sisseton Wahpeton Sioux Tribe, Skull Valley Band of Goshute
Indians, Tulalip ... (NO. 04-631) " HN: 1 (S.Ct.)
(Appellate Brief) (U.S. Jul 14, 2005) Brief for the United States as Amicus
Curiae Supporting Respondent (NO. 04-631) " HN: 1,5 (S.Ct.)
1233 Richards v. Prairie Band Potawatomi Nation, 2005 WL 1141256, *1141256+
(Appellate Brief) (U.S. May 12, 2005) Brief for Petitioner (NO. 04-631)

HN: 8 (S.Ct.)
1234 Richards v. Prairie Band Potawatomi Nation, 2005 WL 1169106, *1169106+
(Appellate Brief) (U.S. May 12, 2005) Brief of the States of South Dakota,
Alaska, California, Connecticut, Idaho, Michigan, Missouri, Nevada, New
Mexico, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Utah and Wyoming as
Amici Curiae in Support ... (NO. 04-631) " HN: 1,5,8 (S.Ct.)
1235 Swedenburg v. Kelly, 2004 WL 2190371, *2190371+ (Appellate Brief) (U.S. Sep
23, 2004) Brief for State of New York Respondents (NO. 03-1274) " HN:
30,31 (S.Ct.)
1236 Michigan Beer & Wine Wholesalers Association v. Heald, 2004 WL 1720079,
*1720079+ (Appellate Brief) (U.S. Jul 29, 2004) Brief for Petitioner (NO.
03-1120) " HN: 30,31 (S.Ct.)
1237 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Petitioner, v. Billy Jo LARA, Respondent.,
2003 WL 23112950, *23112950+ (Appellate Brief) (U.S. Dec 29, 2003) Brief of
Respondent Billy Jo Lara (NO. 03-107) HN: 8 (S.Ct.)
2003 WL 22988876, *22988876+ (Appellate Brief) (U.S. Dec 15, 2003) Brief
Amicus Curiae of the Citizens Equal Rights Foundation in Support of Re-
spondent in Part (NO. 03-107)
2003 WL 22766743, *22766743+ (Appellate Brief) (U.S. Nov 14, 2003) Brief of
Amicus Curiae National Congress of American Indians in Support of Peti-
tioner (NO. 03-107) " HN: 1,8,24 (S.Ct.)
1240 Hillside Dairy v. Lyons, 2003 WL 1785763, *1785763+ (Appellate Brief) (U.S.
Mar 28, 2003) Brief for Respondents (NO. 01-1018, 01-950) " HN: 31,32
(S.Ct.)
1241 Gratz v. Bollinger, 2003 WL 402203, *402203+ (Appellate Brief) (U.S. Feb 18,
2003) Brief for the Bay Mills Indian Community, Grand Traverse Band of
Ottawa and Chippewa Indians, Hannahville Indian Community, Keweenaw
Bay Indian Community, Lac Vieux Desert Band or Lake Superior ... (NO.
02-516)
1242 Grutter v. Bollinger, 2003 WL 398350, *398350+ (Appellate Brief) (U.S. Feb 13,
2003) Brief for the Bay Mills Indian Community, Grand Traverse Band of
Ottawa and Chippewa Indians, Hannahville Indian Community, Keweenaw
Bay Indian Community, Lac Vieux Desert Band of Lake Superior ... (NO.
02-241)
1243 Chickasaw Nation v. U.S., 2001 WL 362865, *362865+ (Appellate Brief) (U.S.
Apr 09, 2001) AMICUS CURIAE BRIEF OF THE SAN MANUEL BAND
OF SERRANO MISSION INDIANS IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONERS (NO.
00-507)
1244 Atkinson Trading Co., Inc. v. Shirley, 2001 WL 267451, *267451+ (Appellate
Brief) (U.S. Mar 16, 2001) REPLY BRIEF FOR PETITIONER (NO. 00-454) "
HN: 2,8,10 (S.Ct.)

1245 Nevada v. Hicks, 2001 WL 198524, *198524+ (Appellate Brief) (U.S. Feb 23,
2001) REPLY BRIEF FOR PETITIONERS (NO. 99-1994)
Brief) (U.S. Feb 16, 2001) BRIEF FOR THE UNITED STATES AS AMICUS
CURIAE SUPPORTING RESPONDENTS (NO. 00-454) " HN: 2,5,8
(S.Ct.)
Brief) (U.S. Feb 15, 2001) BRIEF AMICI CURIAE OF ASSINIBOINE AND
SIOUX TRIBES OF THE FORT PECK INDIAN RESERVATION, CON-
FEDERATED TRIBES OF THE COLVILLE RESERVATION, LAC DU
FLAMBEAU BAND OF LAKE SUPERIOR CHIPPEWA, AND ST. CROIX
... (NO. 00-454) " HN: 1,2,5 (S.Ct.)
1248 Atkinson Trading Co., Icn. v. Shirley, 2001 WL 175274, *175274+ (Appellate
Brief) (U.S. Feb 15, 2001) BRIEF FOR RESPONDENTS (NO. 00-454) "
HN: 2,3,8 (S.Ct.)
Brief) (U.S. Feb 14, 2001) BRIEF OF AMICI CURIAE CONFEDERATED
TRIBES OF THE UMATILLA INDIAN RESERVATION, THREE AFFILI-
ATED TRIBES OF THE FORT BERTHOLD RESERVATION, MENOM-
INEE INDIAN TRIBE OF WISCONSIN, PUEBLO OF POJOAQUE, SALT
... (NO. 00-454) " HN: 2,7,8 (S.Ct.)
Brief) (U.S. Feb 14, 2001) BRIEF OF THE SHAKOPEE MDEWAKANTON
SIOUX (DAKOTA) COMMUNITY; THE SPIRIT LAKE TRIBE; THE SIS-
SETON-WAHPETON SIOUX TRIBE; THE GRAND PORTAGE BAND OF
CHIPPEWA; AND THE SAC & FOX TRIBE OF THE MISSISSIPPI IN ...
(NO. 00-454) " HN: 2,5,7 (S.Ct.)
1251 Nevada v. Hicks, 2001 WL 57507, *57507+ (Appellate Brief) (U.S. Jan 19,
2001) BRIEF AMICI CURIAE OF THE PYRAMID LAKE PAIUTE TRIBE
OF NEVADA, THE WALKER RIVER PAIUTE TRIBE OF NEVADA, THE
CONFEDERATED TRIBES OF THE UMATILLA INDIAN RESERVA-
TION, THE FORT MOJAVE INDIAN TRIBE, THE ... (NO. 99-1994) "
HN: 1,5,8 (S.Ct.)
2001) BRIEF FOR THE THLOPTHLOCCO TRIBAL TOWN & THE SAC
AND FOX NATION AS AMICI CURIAE SUPPORTING AFFIRMANCE
FOR RESPONDENT, FALLON PAIUTE-SHOSHONE TRIBES, HONOR-
ABLE JOSEPH N. WALRAVEN (NO. 99-1994) " HN: 1,5,8 (S.Ct.)
2001) BRIEF FOR RESPONDENT FLOYD HICKS (NO. 99-1994) HN:
10 (S.Ct.)
2001) BRIEF OF RESPONDENTS THE TRIBAL COURT IN AND FOR

THE FALLON PAIUTE-SHOSHONE TRIBES AND THE HONORABLE
JOSEPH VAN WALRAVEN IN RESPONSE TO BRIEF FOR PETITION-
ERS (NO. 99-1994) " HN: 21 (S.Ct.)
1255 C&L Enterprises, Inc. v. Citizen Band Potawatomi Indian Tribe of OK, 2001 WL
43672, *43672+ (Appellate Brief) (U.S. Jan 16, 2001) BRIEF FOR RESPOND-
ENT (NO. 00-292) HN: 22 (S.Ct.)
Brief) (U.S. Jan 11, 2001) BRIEF OF AMICUS CURIAE ASSOCIATION OF
AMERICAN RAILROADS IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONER (NO. 00-454) "
HN: 8,10,24 (S.Ct.)
Brief) (U.S. Jan 11, 2001) BRIEF OF AMICUS CURIAE INTERSTATE
NATURAL GAS ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA IN SUPPORT OF PETI-
TIONER (NO. 00-454) " HN: 8,17,24 (S.Ct.)
Brief) (U.S. Jan 11, 2001) BRIEF FOR PETITIONER (NO. 00-454) "
HN: 8,17,24 (S.Ct.)
Brief) (U.S. Jan 11, 2001) BRIEF OF AMICUS CURIAE PROPER ECO-
NOMIC RESOURCE MANAGEMENT, INC. IN SUPPORT OF PETI-
TIONER (NO. 00-454) HN: 8,10 (S.Ct.)
Brief) (U.S. Jan 11, 2001) BRIEF OF AMICUS CURIAE STATES OF
SOUTH DAKOTA, ALABAMA, COLORADO, FLORIDA, MICHIGAN,
MISSISSIPPI, NORTH DAKOTA, OKLAHOMA AND UTAH IN SUP-
PORT OF PETITIONER (NO. 00-454) " HN: 2,8,11 (S.Ct.)
1261 Nevada v. Hicks, 2000 WL 1784132, *1784132+ (Appellate Brief) (U.S. Nov 30,
2000) BRIEF FOR PETITIONERS (NO. 99-1994) "
1262 Director of Revenue v. CoBank ACB, 2000 WL 1210374, *1210374+ (Appellate
Brief) (U.S. Aug 23, 2000) BRIEF OF AMICUS CURIAE MULTISTATE
TAX COMMISSION IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONER (NO. 99-1792) "
HN: 31 (S.Ct.)
1263 El Paso Nat. Gas Co. v. Neztsosie, 1999 WL 14509, *14509+ (Appellate Brief)
(U.S. Jan 14, 1999) BRIEF FOR RESPONDENTS (NO. 98-6) HN: 23
(S.Ct.)
1264 El Paso Natural Gas Co. v. Neztsosie, 1999 WL 21290, *21290+ (Appellate
Brief) (U.S. Jan 14, 1999) BRIEF OF THE NAVAJO NATION AS AMICUS
CURIAE IN SUPPORT OF RESPONDENTS (NO. 98-6) HN: 21 (S.Ct.)
1265 State of Minn. v. Mille Lacs Band of Chippewa Indians, 1998 WL 748397,
*748397+ (Appellate Brief) (U.S. Oct 26, 1998) REPLY BRIEF OF JOHN W.
THOMPSON, JENNY THOMPSON, JOSEPH N. KARPEN, LEROY
BURLING, GLENN THOMPSON, GARY M. KIEDROWSKI, MICHAEL
SHEFF AND ROBERT L. EDMONDS IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONERS

(NO. 97-1337) HN: 19,20,21 (S.Ct.)
1266 State of Ariz. ex rel., Arizona Dept. of Revenue v. Blaze Const. Co., Inc., 1998
WL 541896, *541896+ (Appellate Brief) (U.S. Aug 20, 1998) BRIEF AMICI
CURIAE OF FRANK ADSON, ANITA AHHAITTY, VANESSA
GOODEAGLE, ALVIN MOORE, DENISE MOORE, RANDALL TIGER
AND SAMUEL VETER IN SUPPORT OF THE RESPONDENT (NO.
97-1536) HN: 5,8,10 (S.Ct.)
1267 Cass County, Minnesota v. Leech Lake Band of Chippewa Indians, 1998 WL
23180, *23180+ (Appellate Brief) (U.S. Jan 20, 1998) BRIEF OF AMICI
CURIAE TRIBES OF FOREST COUNTY POTAWATOMI COMMUNITY,
EASTERN BAND OF CHEROKEES, and TURTLE MOUNTAIN BAND OF
CHIPPEWA INDIANS IN SUPPORT OF RESPONDENTS (NO. 97-174)
HN: 5 (S.Ct.)
1268 Cass County, Minn. v. Leech Lake Band of Chippewa Indians, 1998 WL 25517,
*25517+ (Appellate Brief) (U.S. Jan 20, 1998) BRIEF FOR THE UNITED
STATES AS AMICUS CURIAE SUPPORTING RESPONDENT (NO.
97-174) " HN: 1 (S.Ct.)
1269 State of Alaska v. Native Village of Venetie Tribal Government, 1997 WL
710930, *710930+ (Appellate Brief) (U.S. Nov 12, 1997) REPLY BRIEF FOR
PETITIONER (NO. 96-1577) "
631734, *631734+ (Appellate Brief) (U.S. Oct 14, 1997) BRIEF OF AMICUS
CURIAE TANANA CHIEFS CONFERENCE IN SUPPORT OF RESPOND-
ENTS (NO. 96-1577)
631801, *631801+ (Appellate Brief) (U.S. Oct 14, 1997) BRIEF FOR RE-
SPONDENTS (NO. 96-1577) " HN: 2,7,10 (S.Ct.)
1272 Kiowa Tribe of Okl. v. Manufacturing Technologies, Inc., 1997 WL 597135,
*597135+ (Appellate Brief) (U.S. Sep 26, 1997) BRIEF OF FIRST NATION-
AL BANK OF ALTUS AND RAYMOND L. FRIEDLOB, RECEIVER FOR
ALPINE MUTUAL FUND TRUST AS AMICI CURIAE IN SUPPORT OF
RESPONDENT (NO. 96-1037) " HN: 8 (S.Ct.)
1273 Kiowa Tribe of Oklahoma v. Manufacturing Technologies, Inc., 1997 WL
523689, *523689+ (Appellate Brief) (U.S. Aug 25, 1997) BRIEF AMICI
CURIAE OF THE ASSINIBOINE AND SIOUX TRIBES OF THE FORT
PECK RESERVATION, HO-CHUNK NATION, NOTTAWASEPPI HUR-
ON BAND OF POTAWATOMI INDIANS, STANDING ROCK SIOUX
TRIBE, CONFEDERATED TRIBES OF ... (NO. 96-1037)
523859, *523859+ (Appellate Brief) (U.S. Aug 25, 1997) BRIEF FOR THE
UNITED STATES AS AMICUS CURIAE SUPPORTING PETITIONER
(NO. 96-1037) HN: 20 (S.Ct.)

528593, *528593+ (Appellate Brief) (U.S. Aug 25, 1997) BRIEF AMICI
CURIAE OF THE CHEYENNE-ARAPAHO TRIBES OF OKLAHOMA,
THE MASHANTUCKET PEQUOT TRIBE, AND THE NATIONAL CON-
GRESS OF AMERICAN INDIANS, IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONERS (NO.
96-1037)
528602, *528602+ (Appellate Brief) (U.S. Aug 25, 1997) JOINT BRIEF OF
THE SHAKOPEE MDEWAKANTON SIOUX (DAKOTA) COMMUNITY,
AND ITS WHOLLY-OWNED CORPORATE ENTITY, LITTLE SIX, INC.;
THE SISSETON-WAHPETON SIOUX TRIBE; THE RED LAKE BAND
OF CHIPPEWA; AND ... (NO. 96-1037) HN: 20,21 (S.Ct.)
1277 Strate v. A-1 Contractors, 1996 WL 739255, *739255+ (Appellate Brief) (U.S.
Dec 27, 1996) REPLY BRIEF OF PETITIONERS (NO. 95-1872) " HN:
2,7,8 (S.Ct.)
Dec 10, 1996) BRIEF AMICUS CURIAE FOR STATES OF MONTANA,
ARIZONA, CALIFORNIA, COLORADO, IDAHO, MASSACHUSETTS,
MISSISSIPPI, NEVADA, NEW YORK, SOUTH DAKOTA, UTAH, WASH-
INGTON, WISCONSIN AND WYOMING IN SUPPORT OF ... (NO.
95-1872) " HN: 5,8 (S.Ct.)
Dec 10, 1996) BRIEF OF AMICI CURIAE LAKE COUNTY, MONTANA,
AND FLATHEAD JOINT BOARD OF CONTROL OF THE MISSION,
FLATHEAD, AND JOCKO VALLEY IRRIGATION DISTRICTS IN SUP-
PORT OF RESPONDENTS (NO. 95-1872) HN: 8 (S.Ct.)
Dec 09, 1996) BRIEF OF RESPONDENTS (NO. 95-1872) HN: 7 (S.Ct.)
1281 Honorable Strate v. A-1 Contractors, 1996 WL 656356, *656356+ (Appellate
Brief) (U.S. Nov 12, 1996) BRIEF OF PETITIONERS (NO. 95-1872) "
HN: 23,24,25 (S.Ct.)
Nov 12, 1996) BRIEF OF AMICI CURIAE SHAKOPEE MDEWAKANTON
SIOUX (DAKOTA) COMMUNITY, SISSETON-WAHPETON SIOUX
TRIBE, SPIRIT LAKE SIOUX TRIBE AND RED LAKE BAND OF CHIP-
PEWA IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONERS (NO. 95-1872) HN: 23 (S.Ct.)
Nov 12, 1996) BRIEF AMICUS CURIAE OF THE NORTHERN PLAINS
TRIBAL JUDGES ASSOCIATION IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONERS (NO.
95-1872)
1284 Honorable Strate v. A-1 Contractors, 1996 WL 658760, *658760+ (Appellate
Brief) (U.S. Nov 12, 1996) BRIEF OF ASSINIBOINE AND SIOUX TRIBES
OF THE FORT PECK RESERVATION, CONFEDERATED TRIBES OF
THE COLVILLE RESERVATION, HO-CHUNK NATION, ST. CROIX

BAND OF CHIPPEWA INDIANS AND STANDING ROCK SIOUX TRIBE,
... (NO. 95-1872) " HN: 1,5 (S.Ct.)
Nov 12, 1996) BRIEF FOR THE UNITED STATES AS AMICUS CURIAE
SUPPORTING PETITIONERS (NO. 95-1872) " HN: 3 (S.Ct.)
1286 U.S. v. Winstar Corp., 1996 WL 144129, *144129+ (Appellate Brief) (U.S. Mar
29, 1996) BRIEF FOR AEROSPACE INDUSTRIES ASSOCIATION OF
AMERICA, INC., ELECTRONIC INDUSTRIES ASSOCIATION, NA-
TIONAL SECURITY INDUSTRIAL ASSOCIATION, AND SHIPBUILD-
ERS COUNCIL OF AMERICA AS AMICI CURIAE IN ... (NO. 95-865) "
HN: 17,24,36 (S.Ct.)
1287 U.S. v. Winstar Corp., 1996 WL 99716, *99716+ (Appellate Brief) (U.S. Mar 01,
1996) BRIEF FOR THE PETITIONER (NO. 95-865) " HN: 19,20,21
(S.Ct.)
1288 SEMINOLE TRIBE OF FLORIDA, Petitioner, v. State of Florida, et al., 1995
WL 17008493, *17008493+ (Appellate Brief) (U.S. Mar 31, 1995) Brief for the
United States as Amicus Curiae Supporting Petitioner (NO. 94-12)
1289 Oklahoma Tax Com'n v. Chickasaw Nation, 1995 WL 71512, *71512+
(Appellate Brief) (U.S. Feb 21, 1995) BRIEF OF PETITIONER (NO. 94-771) "
HN: 1,20 (S.Ct.)
1290 Northwest Airlines, Inc. v. County of Kent, 1993 WL 407332, *407332+
(Appellate Brief) (U.S. Oct 04, 1993) BRIEF OF ALL RESPONDENTS (NO.
92-97) " HN: 31 (S.Ct.)
1291 Northwest Airlines, Inc. v. County of Kent, 1993 WL 407318, *407318+
(Appellate Brief) (U.S. Aug 05, 1993) BRIEF FOR PETITIONERS (NO.
92-97) " HN: 30,31 (S.Ct.)
1292 Cisnerosv. Alpine Ridge Group, 1993 WL 289724, *289724+ (Appellate Brief)
(U.S. Feb 08, 1993) RESPONDENT ALPINE'S BRIEF ON THE MERITS
(NO. 92-551) HN: 20 (S.Ct.)
1293 Gilmore v. Taylor, 1993 WL 476491, *476491 (Appellate Brief) (U.S. Jan 19,
1993) BRIEF FOR RESPONDENT (NO. 91-1738)
1294 Kemp v. Alpine Ridge Group, 1993 WL 445393, *445393+ (Appellate Brief)
(U.S. Jan 07, 1993) BRIEF FOR THE PETITIONERS (NO. 92-551) HN:
19,21 (S.Ct.)
1295 South Dakota v. Bourland, 1992 WL 512145, *512145+ (Appellate Brief) (U.S.
Dec 21, 1992) BRIEF FOR RESPONDENTS (NO. 91-2051) " HN: 5
(S.Ct.)
1296 South Dakota v. Bourland, 1992 WL 541268, *541268+ (Appellate Brief) (U.S.
Nov 19, 1992) BRIEF FOR PETITIONER (NO. 91-2051) HN: 2,7 (S.Ct.)
1297 County of Yakima v. Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakima Indian Na-
tion, 1991 WL 521293, *521293 (Appellate Brief) (U.S. Sep 23, 1991) REPLY
BRIEF OF PETITIONERS/CROSS RESPONDENTS, COUNTY OF

YAKIMA AND DALE A. GRAY, YAKIMA COUNTY TREASURER (NO.
90-408, 90-577) HN: 25 (S.Ct.)
1298 David HOFFMAN, Commissioner, Department of Community and Regional Af-
fairs, State of Alaska, Petitioner, v. NATIVE VILLAGE OF NOATAK and
Circle Village, Respondents., 1990 WL 10012786, *10012786+ (Appellate Brief)
(U.S. Dec 17, 1990) Brief Amici Curiae of the Native Village of Tanana, Nat-
ive Village of Tatitlek, Native Village of Chenega, Port Graham Village, Eng-
lish Bay Village, Eyak Native Village, Sitka Community Association, ... (NO.
89-1782) HN: 23 (S.Ct.)
1299 OKLAHOMA TAX COMMISSION, Petitioner, v. THE CITIZEN BAND POT-
AWATOMI INDIAN TRIBE OF OKLAHOMA, Respondent., 1990 WL
10012682, *10012682+ (Appellate Brief) (U.S. Dec 12, 1990) Brief of Respond-
ent (NO. 89-1322) HN: 7,15 (S.Ct.)
1300 Oklahoma Tax Com'n v. Citizen Band Potawatomi Indian Tribe of Oklahoma,
1990 WL 508092, *508092+ (Appellate Brief) (U.S. Dec 12, 1990) BRIEF OF
RESPONDENT (NO. 89-1322) HN: 7 (S.Ct.)
1301 OKLAHOMA TAX COMMISSION, petitioner, v. CITIZEN BAND POT-
AWATOMI INDIAN TRIBE OF OKLAHOMA., 1990 WL 10012681,
*10012681+ (Appellate Brief) (U.S. Nov 15, 1990) Brief for the United States
as Amicus Curiae (NO. 89-1322) HN: 7,14,15 (S.Ct.)
1302 David HOFFMAN, Commissioner, Department of Community and Regional Af-
fairs, State of Alaska, Petitioner, v. NATIVE VILLAGE OF NOATAK and
Circle Village, Respondents., 1990 WL 10012776, *10012776+ (Appellate Brief)
(U.S. Nov 15, 1990) Brief for the Petitioner (NO. 89-1782)
1303 Hoffman v. Native Village of Noatak, 1990 WL 505715, *505715+ (Appellate
Brief) (U.S. Nov 15, 1990) BRIEF FOR THE PETITIONER (NO. 89-1782)
1304 OKLAHOMA TAX COMMISSION, Petitioner, v. CITIZEN BAND POT-

AWATOMI INDIAN TRIBE OF OKLAHOMA, Respondent., 1990 WL
10012684, *10012684+ (Appellate Brief) (U.S. Oct Term 1990) Brief of the Sac
and Fox Nation, the United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians in Ok-
lahoma, Wichita Caddo and Delaware Industries, Muscogee (Creek) Nation,
Yankton Sioux Tribe, Cheyenne and Arapaho ... (NO. 89-1322) HN: 23
(S.Ct.)
1305 OKLAHOMA TAX COMMISSION, Petitioner, v. CITIZEN BAND POT-
AWATOMI INDIAN TRIBE OF OKLAHOMA., 1990 WL 10012678,
*10012678+ (Appellate Brief) (U.S. Aug 13, 1990) Brief for the United States
as Amicus Curiae (NO. 89-1322) HN: 7,14,15 (S.Ct.)
1306 Albert DURO, Petitioner, v. Edward REINA, Chief of Police, Salt River Depart-
ment of Public Safety, Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community; and the
Hon. Relman R. Manuel, Sr., Chief Judge of the Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian
Community Court, Respondents., 1989 WL 1126955, *1126955+ (Appellate
Brief) (U.S. Oct 06, 1989) Brief of Respondent (NO. 886546) HN: 5,8

(S.Ct.)
1307 Albert DURO, petitioner, v. Edward REINA, Chief of Police, Salt River Depart-
ment of Public Safety, Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community, et al., 1989
WL 1126957, *1126957+ (Appellate Brief) (U.S. Oct 06, 1989) Brief for the
United States as Amicus Curiae Supporting Respondents (NO. 88-6546)
1308 Albert DURO, Petitioner, v. Edward REINA, Chief of Police, Salt River Dept. of
Public Safety, Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community; and the Hon. Rel-
man R. Manuel, Sr., Chief Judge of the Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Com-
munity Court, Respondents., 1989 WL 1126960, *1126960+ (Appellate Brief)
(U.S. Oct 06, 1989) Brief Amici Curiae on behalf of Six American Indian
Tribes (NO. 88-6546) HN: 8,24,28 (S.Ct.)
1309 Albert DURO, Petitioner, v. Edward REINA, Chief of Police, Salt River Pima-
Maricopa Indian Community, et al., Respondents., 1989 WL 1126961,
*1126961+ (Appellate Brief) (U.S. Oct 06, 1989) Brief of Amicus Curiae Sac
and Fox Nation, Kickapoo Tribe of Oklahoma, and Housing Authority of the
Sac & Fox Nation in Support of Respondents (NO. 88-6546) HN: 5,7
(S.Ct.)
1310 Albert DURO, Petitioner, v. Edward REINA, Chief of Police, Salt River Depart-
ment of Public Safety, Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community; and the
Hon. Relman R. Manuel, Sr., Chief Judge of the Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian
Community Court, Respondents., 1989 WL 1126952, *1126952+ (Appellate
Brief) (U.S. Aug 07, 1989) Brief of Petitioner (NO. 88-6546) " HN: 8
(S.Ct.)
1311 EMPLOYMENT DIVISION, Department of Human Resources, of the State of
Oregon, W.E. Hunter, Administrator, Petitioners, v. Alfred L. SMITH Galen W.
Black, and Adapt, Respondents., 1989 WL 1126846, *1126846 (Appellate Brief)
(U.S. May 22, 1989) Brief for Petitioners (NO. 88-1213)
1312 United States of America, appellant, v. SPERRY CORPORATION and SPERRY
WORLD TRADE, INC., 1989 WL 1126962, *1126962+ (Appellate Brief) (U.S.
Apr 28, 1989) Brief for the Appellant (NO. 88-952) HN: 33 (S.Ct.)
1313 OKLAHOMA TAX COMMISSION, Petitioner, v. Jan GRAHAM, et al., Re-
spondents., 1988 WL 1025830, *1025830+ (Appellate Brief) (U.S. Dec 16, 1988)
Brief of Respondents, Jan Graham and the Chickasaw Nation (NO. 88-266)
HN: 23 (S.Ct.)
1314 Philip BRENDALE, Petitioner, v. CONFEDERATED TRIBES AND BANDS
OF THE YAKIMA INDIAN NATION, et al., Respondents. Stanley WILKIN-
SON, Petitioner, v. CONFEDERATED TRIBES AND BANDS OF THE
YAKIMA INDIAN NATION, Respondent. COUNTY OF YAKIMA, et al., Peti-
tioners, v. CONFEDERATED TRIBES AND BANDS OF THE YAKIMA INDI-
AN NATION, Respondent., 1988 WL 1025949, *1025949+ (Appellate Brief)
(U.S. Nov 03, 1988) Brief of Amici Curiae Standing Rock Sioux Tribe and
Assiniboine and Sioux Tribes of the Fort Peck Indian Reservation in Support
of Respondent (NO. 87-1622, 87-1697, 87-1711) HN: 5 (S.Ct.)

(U.S. Oct Term 1988) Brief of Petitioner Stanley Wilkinson (NO. 87-1622,
87-1697, AND87-1711) HN: 8 (S.Ct.)
(U.S. Oct Term 1988) Brief of Petitioners County of Yakima, et al. (NO.
87-1622, 87-1697, 87-1711) " HN: 20,28 (S.Ct.)
(U.S. Oct Term 1988) Brief of the Navajo Nation as Amicus Curiae in Sup-
port of Respondents (NO. 87-1622, 87-1697, AND87-1711) HN: 21,28
(S.Ct.)
(U.S. Oct Term 1988) Brief of Amici Curiae National Congress of American
Indians, All Indian Pueblo Council, and Pueblo of San Ildefonso in Support
of Respondent (NO. 87-1622, 87-1697, 87-1711) " HN: 1,5,28 (S.Ct.)
(U.S. Oct Term 1988) Brief of Respondent, Yakima Indian Nation (NO.
87-1622, 87-1697, 87-1711) HN: 23 (S.Ct.)

(U.S. Oct Term 1988) Brief Amici Curiae of the Swinomish Tribal Com-
munity, et al., Blackfeet Tribe of Indians of the Blackfeet Reservation; Chey-
enne River Sioux Tribe; Coeur d'Alene Tribe of Idaho; Confederated Salish
& ... (NO. 87-1622, 87-1697, AND87-1711) HN: 5,8 (S.Ct.)
1321 COTTON PETROLEUM CORPORATION, et al., Appellants, v. State of New
Mexico, et al., Appellees., 1988 WL 1026003, *1026003+ (Appellate Brief) (U.S.
Oct Term 1988) Brief Amici Curiae of the Crow Tribe, the Shoshone Tribe of
the Wind River Reservation, the Arapaho Tribe of the Wind River Reserva-
tion, the Yavapai-Apache Tribe, the American Indian Resources ... (NO.
87-1327) " HN: 36 (S.Ct.)
Oct Term 1988) Amici Curiae Brief of San Juan County, Duchesne County,
and Uintah County, Utah, and the Boards of Education of San Juan County
School District, Duchesne County School District and Uintah County ... (NO.
87-1327) HN: 34 (S.Ct.)
Sep 30, 1988) Reply Brief of Appellants Cotton Petroleum Corporation, et al.
(NO. 87-1327) HN: 25 (S.Ct.)
1324 AMERADA HESS CORPORATION et al., Appellants, v. Director, Division of
Taxation, Appellee. TEXACO INC. and TENNECO OIL COMPANY, Appel-
lants, v. Director, Division of Taxation, New Jersey Department of the Treasury,
Appellee., 1988 WL 1026132, *1026132+ (Appellate Brief) (U.S. Sep 23, 1988)
Reply Brief for Appellants (NO. 87-453, 87-464)
(U.S. Sep 02, 1988) Motion of Qpoa and S/Spawn for Leave to File Amicus
Curiae Brief (followed by proposed brief) (NO. 87-1622, 87-1697,
AND87-1711)
Sep 02, 1988) Brief of the States of Arizona, California, Colorado, Florida,
Iowa, Montana, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Utah, Washington,
Wisconsin and Wyoming as Amici Curiae (NO. 87-1327) " HN: 36
(S.Ct.)

Aug 31, 1988) Brief of Appellees State of New Mexico, et al. (NO. 87-1327) "
HN: 25 (S.Ct.)
1328 State of California, et al., Petitioners, v. United States, et al., Respondents., 1988
WL 1025740, *1025740+ (Appellate Brief) (U.S. Aug 12, 1988) Brief Amicus
Curiae of the Klamath Tribe; the Nez Perce Tribe; the Swinomish Tribal
Community; et al. (additional amici listed on inside cover) in Support of Re-
spondents (NO. 87-1165) HN: 8,28 (S.Ct.)
Jun 30, 1988) Motion of Jicarilla Apache Tribe for Leave to File Amicus
Curiae Brief and Brief of Jicarilla Apache Tribe as Amicus Curiae in Sup-
port of the Appellants (NO. 87-1327) HN: 4,25,35 (S.Ct.)
1330 D.H. HOLMES COMPANY, LTD., Appellant, v. Shirley MCNAMARA, Secret-
ary of Revenue and Taxation, The Department of Revenue and Taxation, State of
Louisiana, Appellee., 1987 WL 881134, *881134+ (Appellate Brief) (U.S. Dec
23, 1987) Brief of Appellant (NO. 87-267) HN: 33 (S.Ct.)
Oct Term 1987) Brief of the Jicarilla Apache Tribe as Amicus Curiae in Op-
position to the Appellants (NO. 87-1327) HN: 20 (S.Ct.)
Mexico, et al., Appellees., 1987 WL 880181, *880181 (Appellate Brief) (U.S.
Oct Term 1987) Brief of Amicus Curiae Council of Energy Resource Tribes
in Support of Appellees' Motion to Dismiss (NO. 87-1327)
Oct Term 1987) Appellants' Reply Brief (NO. 87-1327) HN: 25,27
(S.Ct.)
1334 Cotton PETROLEUM, et al., Appellants, v. State of New Mexico, et al., Ap-
pellees., 1987 WL 880184, *880184+ (Appellate Brief) (U.S. Oct Term 1987)
Brief of Amicus Curiae Southern Ute Indian Tribe In Support of Appellants
(NO. 87-1327) HN: 17,23,24 (S.Ct.)
Oct Term 1987) Amici Curiae Brief of Texaco Inc., Chevron U.S.A. Inc., Uni-
on Oil Company of California, Phillips Petroleum Company, Wilshire Oil
Company of Texas, Exxon Corporation, Mobil Exploration and Producing ...
(NO. 87-1327) " HN: 3 (S.Ct.)
Oct Term 1987) Brief Amicus Curiae, the Navajo Tribe of Indians, in Sup-

port of Appellants (NO. 87-1327) " HN: 31 (S.Ct.)
Oct Term 1987) Brief of the Assiniboine and Sioux Tribes of the Fort Peck
Reservation as Amicus Curiae in Support of the Appellants (NO. 87-1327)
HN: 25,36 (S.Ct.)
1338 COTTON PETROLEUM CORPORATION, et al., Appellants, State of New
Oct Term 1987) Amicus Curiae Brief of New Mexico Oil & Gas Association
(NO. 87-1327) HN: 2,7 (S.Ct.)
Oct Term 1987) Brief of Amici Blackfeet Tribe of Indians and the Ute Indian
Tribe of the Uintah and Ouray Reservation (NO. 87-1327) " HN:
25,35,36 (S.Ct.)
Oct Term 1987) Brief of Amici Curiae Council of Energy Resource Tribes
and Shoshone-Bannock Tribes (NO. 87-1327) HN: 17,23,24 (S.Ct.)
Oct Term 1987) Brief of Appellants Cotton Petroleum Corporation, et al.
(NO. 87-1327) " HN: 3,24,36 (S.Ct.)
1342 United States of America, petitioner, v. CHEROKEE NATION OF OK-
LAHOMA., 1986 WL 728562, *728562+ (Appellate Brief) (U.S. Nov 20, 1986)
Brief for the United States (NO. 85-1940) HN: 19,21 (S.Ct.)
1343 IOWA MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, a Corporation, Petitioner, v. Ed-
ward M. LaPLANTE, Verla LaPlante, Robert Wellman, Jr., Ramona Wellman,
Craig Wellman, Terry Wellman and Wellman Ranch Company a Dissolved
Montana Corporation, Respondents., 1986 WL 728044, *728044+ (Appellate
Brief) (U.S. Nov 12, 1986) Petitioner's Reply Brief (NO. 85-1589) HN: 10
(S.Ct.)
1344 FIRST ENGLISH EVANGELICAL LUTHERAN CHURCH OF GLENDALE,
Appellant, v. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA., 1986 WL 727420,
*727420+ (Appellate Brief) (U.S. Nov 04, 1986) Brief for the United States as
Amicus Curiae Supporting Appellee (NO. 85-1199) HN: 16 (S.Ct.)
1345 State of California, et al., Appellants, v. CABAZON BAND OF MISSION INDI-
ANS, et al., Appellees., 1986 WL 728108, *728108+ (Appellate Brief) (U.S. Oct
Term 1986) Brief of the Jicarilla Apache Tribe, Pueblo of Isleta, and Pueblo
of Santa Ana as Amici Curiae in Support of the Appellees (NO. 85-1708)
HN: 24 (S.Ct.)
1346 State of California, et al., Appellants, v. CABAZON BAND OF MISSION INDI-
ANS, et al., Appellees., 1986 WL 728106, *728106+ (Appellate Brief) (U.S. Sep

24, 1986) Motion for Leave to File Brief Amici Curiae and Brief Amici Curi-
ae of the Pueblo of Sandia, the Pueblo of Acoma, the Pueblo of Tesuque, and
the Pueblo of San Juan in Support of the Position of ... (NO. 85-1708)
HN: 5,8 (S.Ct.)
1347 IOWA MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, petitioner, v. Edward M.
LAPLANTE, et al., 1986 WL 728042, *728042+ (Appellate Brief) (U.S. Sep 15,
1986) Brief for the United States as Amicus Curiae Supporting Respondents
(NO. 85-1589) " HN: 23,28 (S.Ct.)
1348 Otis R. BOWEN, Secretary of Health and Human Services, et al., appellants, v.
PUBLIC AGENCIES OPPOSED TO SOCIAL SECURITY ENTRAPMENT, et
al. United States of America, et al., appellants, v. State of California., 1986 WL
728088, *728088+ (Appellate Brief) (U.S. Jan 31, 1986) Brief for the Appel-
lants (NO. 85-521) " HN: 18,21,22 (S.Ct.)
1349 THREE AFFILIATED TRIBES OF THE FORT BERTHOLD RESERVATION,
Petitioner, v. WOLD ENGINEERING, P.C., and Schmidt, Smith & Rush, Re-
spondents., 1985 WL 669306, *669306+ (Appellate Brief) (U.S. Dec 06, 1985)
Petitioner's Brief (NO. 84-1973) HN: 34 (S.Ct.)
1350 UNITED STATES of AMERICA, petitioner, v. Dwight DION, Sr., 1985 WL
669371, *669371+ (Appellate Brief) (U.S. Oct Term 1985) Brief for the United
States (NO. 85-246) HN: 5,9,10 (S.Ct.)
1351 IOWA MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, a Corporation, Petitioner, v. Ed-
ward M. LaPLANTE, Verla LaPlante, Robert Wellman, Jr., Ramona Wellman,
Craig Wellman, Terry Wellman and Wellman Ranch Company, a Dissolved
Montana Corporation, Respondents., 1985 WL 669442, *669442+ (Appellate
Brief) (U.S. Oct Term 1985) Brief of Respondents, Verla LaPlante and Ed-
ward M. LaPlante (NO. 85-1589) HN: 9,24 (S.Ct.)
1352 Otis R. BOWEN, Secretary of Health and Human Services, et al., Appellants, v.
PUBLIC AGENCIES OPPOSED TO SOCIAL SECURITY ENTRAPMENT, et
al., Appellees. United States of America, et al., Appellants, v. State of California,
Appellee., 1985 WL 669482, *669482+ (Appellate Brief) (U.S. Oct Term 1985)
Brief of Appellees (NO. 85-521) " HN: 18,19,21 (S.Ct.)
1353 NATIONAL FARMERS UNION INSURANCE COMPANIES; and Lodge Grass
School District No. 27, Petitioners, v. CROW TRIBE OF INDIANS; Leroy Sage,
a minor; Flora Not Afraid, his guardian; The Tribal Court of The Crow Indian
Reservation; Eddie Roundface, Glen Birdinground, and Ira Left Hand, Judges of
the Tribal Court of the Crow Indian Reservation; Crow Indian Tribal Council;
and Donald Stuart, Chairman of the Crow Indian Tribal Council, Respondents.,
1985 WL 670182, *670182 (Appellate Brief) (U.S. Apr 09, 1985) Reply Brief of
Petitioners (NO. 84-320) HN: 8 (S.Ct.)
1354 NATIONAL FARMERS UNION INSURANCE COMPANIES, et al., Petitioners,
v. CROW TRIBE OF INDIANS, et al., Respondents., 1985 WL 670180,
*670180+ (Appellate Brief) (U.S. Mar 13, 1985) Brief for Crow Respondents
(NO. 84-320) " HN: 1,3,5 (S.Ct.)

1355 NATIONAL FARMERS UNION INSURANCE COMPANIES, et al., Petitioners,
v. CROW TRIBE OF INDIANS, et al., 1985 WL 670183, *670183+ (Appellate
Brief) (U.S. Feb 21, 1985) Brief for the United States as Amicus Curiae Sup-
porting Respondents (NO. 84-320) HN: 2,7 (S.Ct.)
1356 NATIONAL FARMERS UNION INSURANCE COMPANIES, et al., v. CROW
TRIBE OF INDIANS, et al., 1985 WL 670184, *670184 (Appellate Brief) (U.S.
Feb 19, 1985) Brief Amici Curiae of the Assiniboine and Brief Amici Curiae
of the Assiniboine and Sioux Tribes of the Fort Peck Reservation, Cheyenne
River Sioux Tribe, Devils Lake Sioux Tribe, Mescalero Apache ... (NO.
84-320) " HN: 1,5 (S.Ct.)
1357 KERR-MCGEE CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. THE NAVAJO TRIBE OF IN-
DIANS, et al., Respondents., 1985 WL 669180, *669180+ (Appellate Brief)
(U.S. Jan 30, 1985) Reply Brief for the Petitioner (NO. 84-68) " HN:
6,24,34 (S.Ct.)
1358 State of CALIFORNIA, et al., Appellants, v. CABAZON BAND OF MISSION
INDIANS, et al., Appellees., 1985 WL 669486, *669486+ (Appellate Brief)
(U.S. 1985) Brief for Appellee (NO. 85-1708) "
1359 STATE OF MONTANA, et al., Petitioners, v. BLACKFEET TRIBE OF INDI-
ANS., 1984 WL 565559, *565559+ (Appellate Brief) (U.S. Dec 28, 1984) Brief
for the United States as Amicus Curiae in Support of the Respondent (NO.
83-2161) " HN: 4,24,36 (S.Ct.)
ANS., 1984 WL 566090, *566090+ (Appellate Brief) (U.S. Dec 28, 1984) Brief
for the United States as Amicus Curiae in Support of the Respondent (NO.
83-2161) " HN: 4,24,36 (S.Ct.)
(U.S. Dec 26, 1984) Brief Amici Curiae of Association of American Indian
Affairs, Inc., the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe of the Cheyenne River Reser-
vation, South Dakota, the Nez Perce Tribe of Idaho, the Pueblo of Laguna ...
(NO. 84-68) " HN: 6,24,34 (S.Ct.)
1362 KERR-MCGEE CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. NAVAJO TRIBE OF INDIANS,
Respondents., 1984 WL 565795, *565795+ (Appellate Brief) (U.S. Dec 26,
1984) Brief of Amicus Curiae Sac and Fox Tribe of Indians of Oklahoma
(NO. 84-68) HN: 6,24,34 (S.Ct.)
1363 KERR-MCGEE, CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. THE NAVAJO TRIBE OF IN-
(U.S. Dec 26, 1984) Brief of Amici Curiae the Shoshone Indian Tribe and Ar-
apahoe Indian Tribe of the Wind River Reservation, Wyoming, the
Assiniboine and Sioux Tribes of the Fort Peck Reservation, Montana, and
the ... (NO. 84-68) " HN: 1,2,24 (S.Ct.)
ANS, Respondent., 1984 WL 565564, *565564+ (Appellate Brief) (U.S. Dec 22,

1984) Brief of Cotton Petroleum Corporation, Wintershall Oil & Gas Cor-
poration, and Rocky Mountain Oil and Gas Association as Amici Curiae in
Support of the Blackfeet Tribe of Indians (NO. 83-2161) HN: 24,25
(S.Ct.)
1984) Brief for the Crow Tribe of Indians as Amicus Curiae (NO. 83-2161)
HN: 24 (S.Ct.)
1984) Brief of Cotton Petroleum Corporation, Wintershall Oil & Gas Cor-
poration, and Rocky Mountain Oil and Gas Association as Amici Curiae in
Support of the Blackfeet Tribe of Indians (NO. 83-2161) HN: 24,25,35
(S.Ct.)
1984) Brief for the Crow Tribe of Indians as Amicus Curiae (NO. 83-2161)
HN: 24 (S.Ct.)
et al., 1984 WL 565790, *565790+ (Appellate Brief) (U.S. Dec 20, 1984) Brief
for the United States as Amicus Curiae Supporting Respondents (NO. 84-68)
" HN: 23,24,34 (S.Ct.)
(U.S. Dec 1984) Respondents' Brief (NO. 84-68) " HN: 23,24,34
(S.Ct.)
(U.S. Nov 23, 1984) Brief for the Petitioner (NO. 84-68) " HN: 6,24,34
(S.Ct.)
(U.S. Nov 23, 1984) Brief of Amici Curiae Arizona Public Service Company
and Southern California Edison Company in Support of Petitioner (NO.
84-68) " HN: 6,24,34 (S.Ct.)
et al., Respondents., 1984 WL 565794, *565794+ (Appellate Brief) (U.S. Nov
23, 1984) Brief of Amici Curiae Phillips Petroleum Company, et al. (NO.
84-68) " HN: 17,23,24 (S.Ct.)
(U.S. Nov 23, 1984) Brief Amicus Curiae Texaco, Inc. (NO. 84-68) "
HN: 6,24,34 (S.Ct.)

1374 MOUNTAIN STATES TELEPHONE AND TELEGRAPH CO., Petitioner, v.
PUEBLO OF SANTA ANA, Respondent., 1984 WL 565611, *565611+
(Appellate Brief) (U.S. Nov 21, 1984) Brief of Amici Curiae City of Escon-
dido, Escondido Mutual Water Company, and Vista Irrigation District in
Support of Petitioner (NO. 84-262) " HN: 10,11 (S.Ct.)
Respondents., 1984 WL 565793, *565793+ (Appellate Brief) (U.S. Nov 21,
1984) Brief of Amicus Curiae Peabody Coal Company (NO. 84-68)
HN: 6,20,22 (S.Ct.)
(U.S. Nov 21, 1984) Brief of Amicus Curiae Salt River Project Agricultural
Improvement and Power District in Support of the Petitioner (NO. 84-68) "
HN: 6,24,34 (S.Ct.)
ANS, Respondent., 1984 WL 566088, *566088+ (Appellate Brief) (U.S. Oct
Term 1984) Brief of Respondents (NO. 83-2161) HN: 34 (S.Ct.)
(U.S. Aug 03, 1984) Brief of Amicus Curiae Conoco Inc., Atlantic Richfield
Company, the Superior Oil Company, Marathon Oil Company and Getty Oil
Company in Support of Reversal (NO. 84-68) HN: 6,34 (S.Ct.)
1379 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al., Appellants, v. Madison D. LOCKE, et
al., 1984 WL 565715, *565715+ (Appellate Brief) (U.S. Jul 19, 1984) Brief for
the Appellants (NO. 83-1394) HN: 11 (S.Ct.)
1380 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al., Appellants, v. Madison D. LOCKE, et
al., 1984 WL 565934, *565934+ (Appellate Brief) (U.S. Jul 19, 1984) Brief for
the Appellants (NO. 83-1394)
1381 THE COUNTY OF ONEIDA, NEW YORK, and the County of Madison, New
York, Petitioners, v. THE ONEIDA INDIAN NATION OF NEW YORK STATE,
a1k1a the Oneida Nation of New York, a1k1a the Oneida Indians of New York;
the Oneida Indian Nation of Wisconsin, a1k1a the Oneida Tribe of Indians of
Wisconsin, Inc.; the Oneida of the Thames Band Council; and the State of New
York, Respondents. The State of New York, Petitioner, v. The Oneida Indian Na-
tion of New York State, et al.,, 1984 WL 566153, *566153+ (Appellate Brief)
(U.S. Jun 15, 1984) Brief of the County of Oneida, New York, and the County
of Madison, New York, as Petitioners in No. 83-1065 (NO. 83-1065, 83-1240)
1382 THE COUNTY OF ONEIDA, NEW YORK, and The County of Madison, New
et al., Respondents. The State of New York, Petitioner, v. The Oneida Indian Na-
tion of New York State, et al., Respondents., 1984 WL 566159, *566159+
(Appellate Brief) (U.S. Jun 15, 1984) Brief of C. H. Albright and Other South

Carolina Landowners as Amici Curiae in Support of Petitioners (NO.
83-1065, 83-1240)
1383 THE COUNTY OF ONEIDA, NEW YORK and the County of Madison, New
A1K1A The Oneida Nation of New York, A1K1A The Oneida Indians of New
York; the Oneida Indian Nation of Wisconsin, A1K1A The Oneida Tribe of Indi-
ans of Wisconsin, Inc.; and the Oneida of the Thames Band Council, Respond-
ents., 1983 WL 486448, *486448+ (Appellate Brief) (U.S. Oct Term 1983) Brief
of Respondents Oneida Indian Nation of Wisconsin and Oneida Indian Na-
tion of New York (NO. 83-1065, 83-1240) " HN: 20 (S.Ct.)
Apache Tribe, et al., Respondents., 1980 WL 339297, *339297+ (Appellate
Brief) (U.S. Oct Term 1980) Motion for Leave to File Brief Amicus Curiae
and Brief Amicus Curiae of Westmoreland Resources, Inc (NO. 80-11, 80-15)
HN: 24 (S.Ct.)
1385 STATE OF MAINE, Petitioner, v. Stephen L. JOHNSON, Administrator, United
States Environmental Protection Agency, Respondent, Penobscot Nation and Pas-
samaquoddy Tribe, et al., Respondents-Intervenors., 2006 WL 6194747,
*6194747+ (Appellate Brief) (1st Cir. Dec 22, 2006) Final Brief of Respond-
ents-Intervenors Penobscot Nation and Passamaquoddy Tribe (NO. 04-1363,
04-1375) " HN: 21 (S.Ct.)
1386 PENOBSCOT NATION, and Passamquoddy Tribe, Petitioners, v. ENVIRON-
MENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, Respondent, State of Maine, et al., Inter-
venors., 2006 WL 6194748, *6194748+ (Appellate Brief) (1st Cir. Dec 22, 2006)
Final Brief of Petitioners, Penobscot Nation and Passamaquoddy Tribe (NO.
04-1363, 04-1375) " HN: 10,11 (S.Ct.)
1387 PENOBSCOT NATION, and Passamaquoddy Tribe, Petitioners, v. ENVIRON-
venors., 2006 WL 6194749, *6194749+ (Appellate Brief) (1st Cir. Nov 20, 2006)
Reply Brief of Petitioners Penobscot Nation and Passamaquoddy Tribe (NO.
04-1363, 04-1375) HN: 5 (S.Ct.)
1388 STATE OF MAINE, Petitioner, v. Stephen L. JOHNSON, Administrator, United
States Environmental Protection Agency, Respondent, Penobscot Nation and Pas-
samaquddy Tribe, et al., Respondents-Intervenors., 2006 WL 6194741,
*6194741+ (Appellate Brief) (1st Cir. Oct 16, 2006) Brief of Respondents Pen-
obscot Nation and Passamaquoddy Tribe (NO. 04-1363, 04-1375) "
HN: 21 (S.Ct.)
1389 PENOBSCOT NATION and Passamaquoddy Tribe, Petitioners, v. ENVIRON-
venors., 2006 WL 6194751, *6194751+ (Appellate Brief) (1st Cir. May 12, 2006)
Brief of Amici Curiae National Congress of American Indians, Mohegan
Tribe of Connecticut, San Manuel Band of Serrano Indians of California,

Mashantucket Pequot Tribe of Connecticut and Eastern Band ... (NO.
04-1363, 04-1375) " HN: 10,11 (S.Ct.)
1390 NARRAGANSETT INDIAN TRIBE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. STATE OF RHODE
ISLAND, et al., Defendants-Appellee., 2005 WL 6240932, *6240932+
(Appellate Brief) (1st Cir. Sep 21, 2005) Brief of National Congress of Americ-
an Indians, American Civil Liberties Union, and American Civil Liberties
Union, Rhode Island Affiliate as Amici Curiae in Support of Narragansett
Indian Tribe (NO. 04-1155) " HN: 1 (S.Ct.)
1391 NARRAGANSETT INDIAN TRIBE, Appellant, v. THE STATE OF RHODE IS-
LAND and Providence Plantations et al., Appellee., 2005 WL 6240931,
*6240931+ (Appellate Brief) (1st Cir. Sep 14, 2005) Supplemental En Banc
Brief for Narragansett Indian Tribe, Appellant (NO. 04-1155)
1392 NARRAGANSETT INDIAN TRIBE, Appellant, v. THE STATE OF RHODE IS-
LAND AND PROVIDENCE PLANTAIONS et al., Appellee., 2004 WL
5662085, *5662085+ (Appellate Brief) (1st Cir. Apr 13, 2004) Corrected Prin-
cipal Brief for the Appellant Narragansett Indian Tribe (NO. 04-1155)
1393 PENOBSCOT NATION, and Passamaquoddy Tribe, Petitioners, v. ENVIRON-
venors., 2004 WL 5667315, *5667315+ (Appellate Brief) (1st Cir. 2004) Brief of
Petitioners, Penobscot Nation and Passamaquoddy Tribe (NO. 04-1363,
04-1375) " HN: 10,11 (S.Ct.)
1394 Penobscot NATION et al., Appellants, v. GEORGIA-PACIFIC CORPORATION
et al., Appellees., 2000 WL 35567202, *35567202+ (Appellate Brief) (1st Cir.
Dec 26, 2000) Reply Brief of Appellants (NO. 00-2265)
1395 Penobscot NATION et al., Appellants, v. GEORGIA-PACIFIC CORPORATION
et al., Appellees., 2000 WL 35567204, *35567204+ (Appellate Brief) (1st Cir.
Nov 28, 2000) Brief of Appellant (NO. 00-2265)
1396 CROWLEY FOODS, INC.; Cumberland Farms, Inc.; Elmhurst Dairy, Inc.; Farm-
land Dairies, Inc.; And New York State Dairy Foods, Inc., Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v. NORTHEAST DAIRY COMPACT COMMISSION and Kenneth M. Becker,
Commission Executive Director, Defendants-Appellees., 1999 WL 33911748,
*33911748+ (Appellate Brief) (1st Cir. Apr 20, 1999) Brief of Appellees North-
east Dairy Compact Commission and Kenneth M. Becker (NO. 98-2370) "
HN: 30,31 (S.Ct.)
1397 Penobscot NATION, Appellant, v. Cynthia A. FELLENCER, Appellee., 1998
WL 34285026, *34285026+ (Appellate Brief) (1st Cir. Jul 06, 1998) Reply Brief
of Appellant (NO. 98-1326) " HN: 8,10,16 (S.Ct.)
1398 Penobscot NATION, Appellant, v. Cynthia A. FELLENCER, Appellee., 1998
WL 34285025, *34285025+ (Appellate Brief) (1st Cir. May 29, 1998) Brief for
Appellant (NO. 98-1326) " HN: 8,16,23 (S.Ct.)
1399 Andrew AKINS, et. al. Appellants, v. PENOBSCOT INDIAN NATION, et. al.
Appellees., 1997 WL 33770137, *1+ (Appellate Brief) (1st Cir. Aug 20, 1997)
Brief of Appellees (NO. 97-1644) " HN: 23,27 (S.Ct.)

1400 UNITED STATES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Dewey LAZORE, Defendant-Appel-
lant., 1995 WL 17830328, *17830328+ (Appellate Brief) (1st Cir. Jun 15, 1995)
Defendant-Appellant's Brief; and Addendum to the Brief (NO. 94-1813)
1401 ONEIDA NATION OF NEW YORk, Plaintiff-Appellee, Seneca Nation of Indi-
ans, St. Regis Mohawk Tribe, Unkechauge Indian Nation, Plaintiffs-Ap-
pellees-Cross-Appellants, v. Andrew M. CUOMO, in his official capacity as
Governor of New York, Thomas H. Mattox, in his official capacity as Acting
Commissioner of the N.Y. Department of Taxation & Finance, Richard Ernst, in
his official capacity as Deputy Commissioner for the Office of Tax Enforcement
for the N.Y. Department of, 2011 WL 490965, *490965+ (Appellate Brief) (2nd
Cir. Feb 04, 2011) Response Brief for New York State Defendants (NO.
10-4265(L), 10-4272(CON), 10-4598(CON), 10-4758(CON)10-4477(,
10-4976(XAP), 10-4981(XAP))
1402 ONEIDA NATION OF NEW YORK, Plaintiff-Appellee, Seneca Nation of Indi-
ans, Plaintiff-Appellee-Cross-Appellant, Unkechauge Indian Nation, Plaintiff-
Appellee-Cross-Appellant, St. Regis Mohawk Tribe, Plaintiff-Ap-
pellee-Cross-Appellant, v. David PATTERSON, Governor of the State of New
York, Jamie Woodward, Acting Commissioner, New York State Department of
Taxation and Finance, WILLIAM Comiskey, Deputy Commissioner, Office of
Tax Enforcement, New, 2011 WL 395645, *395645+ (Appellate Brief) (2nd Cir.
Jan 28, 2011) Opening Brief for the St. Regis Mohawk Tribe (NO. 10-4265(L),
10-4272, 10-4477, 10-4598, 10-4758, 10-4976, 10-4981)
1403 UNKECHAUGE INDIAN NATION and St. Regis Mohawk Tribe, Plaintiffs, v.
David PATERSON, Governor of the State of New York, Jaime Woodward, Act-
ing Commissioner, New York State Department of Taxation and Finance, Willi-
am Comiskey, Deputy Commissioner, Office of Taxation and Finance, John
Melville, Acting Superintendent, New York State Police, each in his or her offi-
cial capacity, Defendants., 2011 WL 395644, *395644+ (Appellate Brief) (2nd
Cir. Jan 26, 2011) Brief of Amicus Curiae Akwesasne Convenience Store As-
sociation in Support of Appellee St. Regis Mohawk Tribe (NO. 10-4265(L),
10-4598(XAP))
1404 UNKECHAUGE INDIAN NATION and St. Regis Mohawk Tribe, Plaintiffs, v.
David PATERSON, Governor of the State of New York, Jaime Woodward, Act-
ing Commissioner, New York State Department of Taxation and Finance, Willi-
am Comiskey, Deputy Commissioner, Office of Taxation and Finance, John
Melville, Acting Superintendent, New York State Police, each in his or her offi-
cial capacity, Defendants., 2011 WL 490959, *490959+ (Appellate Brief) (2nd
Cir. Jan 26, 2011) Brief of Amicus Curiae Akwesasne Convenience Store As-
sociation in Support of Appellee St. Regis Mohawk Tribe (NO. 10-4265(L),
10-4598(XAP))
ans, Plaintiff-Appellee -- Cross-Appellant, St. Regis Mohawk Tribe, Plaintiff-
Appellee -- Cross-Appellant, Unkechauge Indian Nation, Plaintiff-Appellee --
Cross-Appellant, v. David A. PATERSON, in his official capacity as Governor of

New York, Jamie Woodward, in her official capacity as Acting Commissioner of
the New York Department of Taxation & Finance, William J. Comiskey,, 2011
WL 286276, *286276+ (Appellate Brief) (2nd Cir. Jan 21, 2011) Brief of
Plaintiff-Appellee -- Cross-Appellant the Seneca Nation of Indians (NO.
10-4265-CV(L), 10-4272, CON)
pellee-Cross-Appellant, v. David A. PATERSON, in his official capacity as Gov-
ernor of New York, Jamie Woodward, in his official capacity as Acting Commis-
sioner of the N.Y. Department of Taxation & Finance, William J. Comiskey, in
his official, 2011 WL 286364, *286364+ (Appellate Brief) (2nd Cir. Jan 21,
2011) Brief for Plaintiff-Appellee-Cross-Appellant Unkechauge Indian Na-
tion (NO. 10-4265, 10-4272, 10-4477, 10-4598, 10-4758, 10-4976, 10-4981)
pellee-Cross-Appellant, v. David PATTERSON, Governor of the State of New
York, Jamie Woodward, Acting Commissioner, New York State Department of
Taxation and Finance, William Comiskey, Deputy Commissioner, Office of Tax
Enforcement, New, 2011 WL 286367, *286367+ (Appellate Brief) (2nd Cir. Jan
21, 2011) Opening Brief for the St. Regis Mohawk Tribe (NO. 10-4265(L),
10-4272, 10-4477, 10-4598, 10-4758, 10-4976, 10-4981)
1408 Richard MORALES, Petitioner-Appellant, v. USA, Respondent-Appellee., 2009
WL 5832270, *5832270 (Appellate Brief) (2nd Cir. Feb 23, 2009) Reply Brief
for Petitioner-Appellant (NO. 04-0858-PR)
1409 Cody Michael JOCK, Tanner Riley Jock, Jake Tyler Jock, Michael L. Jock, as
parent and legal guardian of Cody Michael Jock, Tanner Riley Jock and Jake
Tyler Jock, Colleen Farwell, as parent and legal guardian of Cody Michael Jock,
Tanner Riley Jock and Jake Tyler Jock, Plaintiffs-Appellants, Layla White and
Charles White, as parent and legal guardian of Layla White, Plaintiffs, v. James
RANSOM, individually and as member of the Salmon River Central School Dis-
trict, 2008 WL 7958856, *7958856+ (Appellate Brief) (2nd Cir. Jan 31, 2008)
Brief for Plaintiffs-Appellants (NO. 07-3162-CV)
1410 ONEIDA INDIAN NATION OF NEW YORK, Plaintiff-
Counter-Defendant-Appellee, v. MADISON COUNTY and Oneida County, New
York, Defendants-Counterclaimants-Appellants; Band of Mohican Indians and
Stockbridge-Munsee, Intervenors-Appellants., 2007 WL 6432639, *6432639+
(Appellate Brief) (2nd Cir. Apr 30, 2007) Reply Brief for Defendants-
Counterclaimants-Appellants (NO. 05-6408-CV(L), 06-5168-CV(CON),
06-5515-CV(CON)) " HN: 1,20 (S.Ct.)
1411 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ex rel., LEON BRAUN, UNITED STATES
OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, Leon BRAUM, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. THE
SEMINOLE TRIBE OF FLORIDA, INC., The Seminole Tribe of Florida, Court

Judge Richard Kyle, Court Judge William Jay Riley, Court Judge David R.
Hansen, Court Judge Levinsky R. Smith, 11th Circuit Judge Joel F. Dubina, 11th
Circuit Judge J.L. Edmondson, 11th Circuit Judge R.L. Anderson, The Law Firm
of Jacobson, Buffalo, Schloessler &, The Law, 2005 WL 5328314, *5328314+
(Appellate Brief) (2nd Cir. Sep 15, 2005) Appellees', Seminole Tribe of Florida
and Seminole Tribe of Florida, Inc., Brief (NO. 05-0439)
1412 CSX TRANSPORTATION, INC., Plaintiff-Appellee, v. NEW YORK STATE
OFFICE OF REAL PROPERTY SERVICES; Thomas G. Griffin, in his Official
Capacity as Executive Director and Secretary to the State Office of Real Property
Services and his Successors in Office; Ifigenia T. Brown; Frank B. Cernese; and
John M. Bacheller, in their Official Capacities as Members of the New York
State Board of Real Property Services and their Successors in Office, Defendants-
Appellants,, 2001 WL 34378327, *34378327+ (Appellate Brief) (2nd Cir. Dec
12, 2001) Brief for Defendants-Appellants New York State Office of Real
Property Services, Thomas G. Griffin, Ifigenia T. Brown, Frank B. Cernese,
and John M. Bacheller (NO. 01-7966) " HN: 1,20 (S.Ct.)
1413 TCG NEW YORK, INC., TC Systems, Inc., and Teleport Communications dba
TCNY, Plaintiffs-Appellants-Cross-Appellees, v. CITY OF WHITE PLAINS,
Defendant-Appellee-Cross-Appellant., 2001 WL 34355499, *34355499+
(Appellate Brief) (2nd Cir. Jul 26, 2001) Brief for Local Governments as Amici
Curiae Supporting the City of White Plains (NO. 01-7213(L)01-7255(XA)
HN: 31,32 (S.Ct.)
1414 UNITED HAULERS ASSOCIATION, INC., Transfer Systems Inc., Bliss Enter-
prises, Inc., Ken Wittman Sanitation, Bristol Trash Removal, Levitt's Commer-
cial Containers, Inc. and Ingersoll Pickup Inc., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. ONEIDA-
HERKIMER SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY, County of
Oneida and County of Herkimer, Defendants-Appellants., 2001 WL 34105520,
*34105520+ (Appellate Brief) (2nd Cir. Jan 26, 2001) Joint Supplemental Brief
for Defendants-Appellants Oneida-Herkimer Solid Waste Management Au-
thority, County of Oneida and County of Herkimer (NO.
00-7593(L)00-7595(CO)
1415 Hilda GARCIA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. AKWESASNE HOUSING AUTHORITY
and John Ransom, Defendants-Appellees., 2001 WL 34105457, *34105457+
(Appellate Brief) (2nd Cir. Jan 12, 2001) Plaintiff's-Appellant's Appeal Brief
(NO. 00-9029) HN: 24 (S.Ct.)
1416 BASIL J. COOK ENTERPRISES, INC., a New York Corporation, Basil J. Cook,
and Guilford D. White, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. St. Regis MOHAWK Tribe, Nor-
man J. Tarbell, Lincoln White, Philip H. Tarbell, Rudolph T. Hart, Douglas A.
Smoke, and Alan R. White, Defendants-Appellees., 1996 WL 33455674,
*33455674+ (Appellate Brief) (2nd Cir. May 31, 1996) Brief for Defendants-Ap-
pellees (NO. 96-7273) " HN: 23 (S.Ct.)
1417 Peter L. POODRY, David C. Peters, Susan Lafromboise, John A. Redeye, Stone-
horse Lone Goeman, Petitioners-Appellants, v. TONAWANDA BAND OF
SENECA INDIANS; Bernard Parker, a/k/a Ganogehdaho; Kervin Jonathan, a/k/a

Skongataigo; Emerson Webster, a/k/a Gauhnahgoi; Darren Jimerson, a/k/a So-
hjeahnohous; Harley Gordon, a/k/a Gah-En-Keh; James Logan; and Darwin Hill,
Respondents-Appellees., 1995 WL 17200251, *17200251+ (Appellate Brief)
(2nd Cir. Jul 31, 1995) Brief for Respondents-Appellees Tonawanda Band of
Seneca Indians, Bernard Parker, Kervin Jonathan, Emerson Webster, Dar-
ren Jimerson, Harley Gordon, James Logan, and Darwin Hill (NO. 95-7490,
95-7492, 95-7498, 95-7502, 95-75040E) HN: 23 (S.Ct.)
1418 Peter L. POODRY, David C. Peters, Susan Lafromboise, John A. Redeye, Stone-
horse Lone Goeman, Petitioners-Appellants, v. TONAWANDA BAND OF
SENECA INDIANS; Bernard Parker, a/k/a Ganogehdaho; Kervin Jonathan, a/k/a
Skongataigo; Emerson Webster, a/k/a Gauhnahgoi; Darren Jimerson, a/k/a So-
hjeahnohous; Harley Gordon, a/k/a Gah-En-Keh; James Logan; and Darwin Hill,
Respondents-Appellees., 1995 WL 17214517, *17214517+ (Appellate Brief)
(2nd Cir. Jul 31, 1995) Brief for Respondents-Appellees Tonawanda Band of
Seneca Indians, Bernard Parker, Kervin Jonathan, Emerson Webster, Dar-
ren Jimerson, Harley Gordon, James Logan, and Darwin Hill (NO. 95-7490,
95-7492, 95-7498, 95-7502, 95-7504) HN: 23 (S.Ct.)
1419 TAMARIND RESORT ASSOCIATES, a U.S. Virgin Islands Joint Venture con-
sisting of Tamarind Resort Corporation, a Delaware Corporation, and Culligan
Porsche, Inc., a New York Corporation, Appellant, v. GOVERNMENT OF THE
VIRGIN ISLANDS, Appellee., 1997 WL 33565720, *33565720+ (Appellate
Brief) (3rd Cir. Mar 27, 1997) Brief of Appellee (NO. 97-7020) HN: 21
(S.Ct.)
1420 PIC-A STATE, PA., INC., et al., Appellees, v. COMMONWEALTH OF
PENNSYLVANIA, Department of Revenue, et al., Eileen H. McNulty Appel-
lants., 1994 WL 16178657, *1+ (Appellate Brief) (3rd Cir. 1994) Brief of Amici
Curiae States of Ohio, Arizona, California, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida,
Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland,
Massachusetts, Minnesota, Missouri, ... (NO. 94-7056) " HN: 30,31
(S.Ct.)
1421 PIC-A-STATE, P.A., INC., et al., Appellees, v. COMMONWEALTH OF
PENNSYLVANIA, et al., Eillen H. McNulty, Appellant., 1994 WL 16178892,
*1+ (Appellate Brief) (3rd Cir. 1994) Brief of Amicus Curiae C.H.A.N.C.E.
(NO. 94-7056) HN: 23 (S.Ct.)
1422 CATAWBA INDIAN TRIBE OF SOUTH CAROLINA, a1k1a Catawba Indian
Nation, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. CITY OF NORTH MYRTLE BEACH; Horry
County; State of South Carolina, Defendants - Appellees., 1999 WL 33615447,
*33615447+ (Appellate Brief) (4th Cir. Dec 17, 1999) Brief of Appellant (NO.
99-2177) HN: 33 (S.Ct.)
1423 PRINCE GEORGE'S COUNTY, MARYLAND, Appellant, v. BELL AT-
LANTIC-MARYLAND, Appellee., 1999 WL 33614391, *33614391+ (Appellate
Brief) (4th Cir. Sep 20, 1999) Reply Brief for Prince George's County (NO.
99-1784) HN: 31 (S.Ct.)

1424 ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGY COUNCIL, Plaintiff-appellee, v. Sierra
CLUB, et al., Intervenor defendants-appellants, State of South Carolina, et al.,
Defendants, Environmental Technology Council, Plaintiff-appellee, v. State of
South Carolina, et al., Defendants-appellants, Sierra Club, et al., Intervenor-de-
fendants., 1995 WL 17845487, *17845487+ (Appellate Brief) (4th Cir. Sep 15,
1995) Reply Brief of Appellants in No. 95-2245 (NO. 95-2008, 95-2245) "
HN: 31 (S.Ct.)
1425 ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGY COUNCIL, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Sierra
CLUB, et al., Intervenor Defendants-Appellants; Environmental Technology
Council, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. State of South Carolina, et al., Defendants-Appel-
lants., 1995 WL 17845489, *17845489+ (Appellate Brief) (4th Cir. Sep 01, 1995)
Brief of Appellee (NO. 95-2008, 95-2245) HN: 35 (S.Ct.)
1426 ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGY COUNCIL, Plaintiff-appellee, v. Sierra
CLUB, et al., Intervenor defendants-appellants, State of South Carolina, et al.,
Defendants, Environmental Technology Council, Plaintiff-appellee, v. State of
South Carolina, et al., Defendants-appellants, Sierra Club, et al., Intervenor-de-
fendants., 1995 WL 17845488, *17845488+ (Appellate Brief) (4th Cir. Aug 02,
1995) Brief of Appellants in No. 95-2245 (NO. 95-2008, 95-2245) "
HN: 33 (S.Ct.)
1427 Mae Louise VICTOR, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. Grand CASINO-COUSHATTA,
Coushatta Tribe of Louisiana, and Grand Casinos of Louisiana, Inc. - Coushatta,
Defendants - Appellants., 2003 WL 23511982, *23511982+ (Appellate Brief)
(5th Cir. 2003) Brief of Appellants (NO. 03-30703)
1428 STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee/Plaintiff, v. YSLETA DEL SUR PUEBLO, Tigua
Gaming Agency, the Tribal Council, Tribal Governor Albert Alvidrez, Tribal
Lieutenant Governor Filbert Candelaria, and Gaming Commissioner Francisco
Hernandez, Appellants/Defendants., 2002 WL 32180423, *32180423+ (Appellate
Brief) (5th Cir. Jan 07, 2002) Appellants' Corrected Brief (NO. 01-51129)
HN: 5,9,10 (S.Ct.)
1429 STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee/Plaintiff, v. YSLETA DEL SUR PUEBLO, Tigua
Gaming Agency, the Tribal Council, Tribal Governor Albert Alvidrez, Tribal
Lieutenant Governor Filbert Candelaria, and Gaming Commissioner Francisco
Hernandez, Appellants/Defendants., 2001 WL 34154847, *1+ (Appellate Brief)
(5th Cir. Dec 10, 2001) Appellants' Brief (NO. 01-51129) HN: 5,9,10
(S.Ct.)
1430 Katy HINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. GRAND CASINOS OF LOUISIANA, LLC-
Tunica-Biloxi, Defendant - Appellant., 2001 WL 34112498, *34112498+
(Appellate Brief) (5th Cir. Aug 07, 2001) Appellant Brief on the Merits of
Grand Casinos of Louisiana, LLC - Tunica-Biloxi (NO. 01-30692)
1431 SECURITY SAVINGS AND LOAN ASSOCIATION, Bailey Mortgage Com-
pany, and Security Trust Federal Savings and Loan Association, Plaintiffs-Ap-
pellees, v. DIRECTOR, Office of Thrift Supervision, and Federal Deposit Insur-
ance Corporation, Defendants-Appellants., 1991 WL 11251893, *11251893+

(Appellate Brief) (5th Cir. Oct 23, 1991) Joint Reply Brief for Appellants (NO.
91-1570) " HN: 21 (S.Ct.)
1432 SECURITY SAVINGS AND LOAN ASSOCIATION, Bailey Mortgage Com-
pany and Security Trust Federal Savings and Loan Association, Plaintiffs-Ap-
pellees, v. DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF THRIFT SUPERVISION and Federal De-
posit Insurance Corporation, Defendants-Appellants., 1991 WL 11251895,
*11251895+ (Appellate Brief) (5th Cir. Jul 30, 1991) Joint Brief for Appellants
(NO. 91-1570) HN: 21 (S.Ct.)
1433 SAVE OURSELVES, INC., Louisiana Environmental Action Network, Inc., Cit-
izens for A Clean Environment, Alliance against Waste and Action to Restore the
Environment, Ascension Parish Residents against Toxic Pollution, and East
Iberville Aware, Appellants, v. U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, John O.
Marsh, Secretary of the Army, and Ascension - St. James Airport and Transporta-
tion Authority, Appellees., 1991 WL 11250732, *11250732+ (Appellate Brief)
(5th Cir. Apr 30, 1991) APPELLANTS' BRIEF (NO. 91-3262)
1434 WELLS FARGO, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, As Trustee, Appellant, v.
LAKE OF THE TORCHES ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION,
Appellee., 2010 WL 4622047, *4622047+ (Appellate Brief) (7th Cir. Aug 31,
2010) Brief of the National Indian Gaming Association As Amicus Curiae in
Support of Appellee Lake of the Torches Economic Development Corpora-
tion and in Support of Affirmance (NO. 10-2069)
1435 State of Wisconsin, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. HO-Chunk NATION, Defendant-Ap-
pellee., 2006 WL 1557459, *1557459+ (Appellate Brief) (7th Cir. May 23, 2006)
Brief of Defendant-Appellee the Ho-Chunk Nation (NO. 06-1837) " HN:
23,34 (S.Ct.)
1436 ILLINOIS CLEAN ENERGY COMMUNITY FOUNDATION, an Illinois not-
for-profit corporation, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. John B. FILAN, in his official capa-
city as Director of the Illinois Governor's Office of Management & Budget, De-
fendant-Appellant., 2004 WL 3759097, *3759097+ (Appellate Brief) (7th Cir.
Jun 28, 2004) Brief of the Defendant-Appellant (NO. 04-2277) HN: 19,21
(S.Ct.)
1437 FOND DU LAC BAND OF LAKE SUPERIOR CHIPPEWA, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v. Ward EINESS, Defendant-Appellee., 2010 WL 1178101, *1178101+
(Appellate Brief) (8th Cir. Mar 15, 2010) Brief of Plaintiff-Appellant Fond du
Lac Band of Lake Superior Chippewa (NO. 10-1236) " HN: 1,5,8
(S.Ct.)
1438 Douglas COLEMAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. DULUTH POLICE DEPART-
MENT, et al., Defendants-Appellees., 2009 WL 4089202, *4089202+ (Appellate
Brief) (8th Cir. Nov 12, 2009) Brief of Defendant-Appellee Fond du Lac Band
of Lake Superior Chippewa (NO. 09-2002) HN: 5,8 (S.Ct.)
1439 Janis SCHMIDT, Appellant, v. Louise Big BOY, et al., Appellee., 2007 WL
6603965, *6603965+ (Appellate Brief) (8th Cir. Nov 15, 2007) Brief of Ap-
pellees Oglala Sioux Tribe, Oglala Sioux Department of Public Safety, Cap-

tain Milton Bianis and Judge Lisa Cook (NO. 07-1857, 07-2457) " HN:
8,12,21 (S.Ct.)
1440 Janis SCHMIDT, Appellant, v. LOUISE BIG BOY, et al., Appellee., 2007 WL
pellees Oglala Sioux Tribe, Oglala Sioux Department of Public Safety, Cap-
tain Milton Bianis and Judge Lisa Cook (NO. 07-1857, 07-2457) " HN:
8,12,21 (S.Ct.)
1441 Leonard F. PRESCOTT, F. William Johnson, and Peter Riverso, Plaintiffs/Ap-
pellees, v. LITTLE SIX, INC., et al., Defendants/Appellants., 2003 WL
23340241, *23340241+ (Appellate Brief) (8th Cir. Dec 22, 2003) Brief of Ap-
pellant (NO. 03-3702) HN: 1,5,23 (S.Ct.)
1442 Margaret A. PENN, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et
al., Defendants, Larry A. Bodin, Richard Armstrong and John Vettleson, Defend-
ants - Appellants, Frank Landeis, Sheriff for Sioux County, and Sioux County
Sheriff's Department, Defendant - Appellants., 2002 WL 32104285, *32104285+
(Appellate Brief) (8th Cir. Sep 03, 2002) Brief for Plaintiff-Appellee (NO.
02-2267102-1731) HN: 8,9,10 (S.Ct.)
1443 Margaret A. PENN, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et
al., Defendants-Appellants., 2002 WL 32144563, *32144563+ (Appellate Brief)
(8th Cir. Jul 2002) Brief for Federal Appellants Vettleson, Armstrong & Bod-
in (NO. 02-2267) " HN: 8,10 (S.Ct.)
1444 Margaret A. PENN, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et
al., Defendants, Frank Landeis, Sheriff for Sioux County, in his official and indi-
vidual capacities; Sioux County Sheriff's Department, Defendants - Appellants,
Sioux County, ND, et al., Defendants., 2002 WL 32104284, *32104284+
(Appellate Brief) (8th Cir. May 01, 2002) Brief of Appellants Frank Landeis
and Sioux County Sheriff's Department (NO. 02-1731) HN: 8 (S.Ct.)
1445 GAMING WORLD INTERNATIONAL, LTD., a Delaware Corporation, Ap-
pellee, v. WHITE EARTH BAND OF CHIPPEWA INDIANS, and White Earth
Reservation Business Committee a1k1a White Earth Tribal Council d1b1a Shoot-
ing Star Casino, Appellants., 2001 WL 34095774, *34095774+ (Appellate Brief)
(8th Cir. Dec 2001) Appellant's Reply Brief (NO. 01-3040) HN: 1,23
(S.Ct.)
1446 GAMING WORLD INTERNATIONAL, LTD., a Delaware Corporation, Ap-
pellee, v. WHITE EARTH BAND OF CHIPPEWA INDIANS, and White Earth
Reservation Business Committee a1k1a White Earth Tribal Council d1b1a Shoot-
ing Star Casino, Appellants., 2001 WL 34095772, *34095772+ (Appellate Brief)
(8th Cir. Oct 30, 2001) Brief of the Appellant (NO. 01-3040) HN: 23
(S.Ct.)
1447 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Appellant, v. William Glenn BILLADEAU,
Appellee., 2001 WL 34091525, *34091525+ (Appellate Brief) (8th Cir. Feb 14,
2001) Appellant's Brief (NO. 01-1061) HN: 2 (S.Ct.)
1448 SOUTHERN UNION COMPANY, Appellant, v. MISSOURI PUBLIC SERVICE

COMMISSION, et al., Appellees., 2001 WL 34155919, *34155919+ (Appellate
Brief) (8th Cir. 2001) Brief of Appellees (NO. 01-2461) HN: 23 (S.Ct.)
1449 SOUTHERN UNION COMPANY, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. MISSOURI PUBLIC
SERVICE COMMISSION, et al., Defendant - Appellee., 2001 WL 34155920,
*34155920+ (Appellate Brief) (8th Cir. 2001) Reply Brief of Plaintiff - Appel-
lant Southern Union Company (NO. 01-2461) HN: 31,33 (S.Ct.)
1450 WATER WHEEL CAMP RECREATIONAL AREA, INC., and Robert Johnson,
Appellees/Cross-Appellants, v. The Honorable Gary LARANCE, and Jolene
Marshall, Appellants/Cross-Appellees., 2010 WL 6351864, *1+ (Appellate Brief)
(9th Cir. Jul 28, 2010) Appellants' Response to Cross-Appellant's Principal
Brief and Reply to Appellee's Response Brief (NO. 09-17349, 09-17357) "
HN: 8,10,21 (S.Ct.)
Marshall, Appellants/Cross-Appellees., 2010 WL 5166818, *5166818+
(Appellate Brief) (9th Cir. Jul 28, 2010) Appellants' Response to Cross-
Appellant's Principal Brief and Reply to Appellee's Response Brief (NO.
09-17349, 09-17357)
1452 WATER WHEEL CAMP RECREATION AREA, INC., et al., Appellees/
Cross-Appellants, v. THE HONORABLE GARY LARANCE, et al., Appellants/
Cross-Appellees., 2010 WL 5853530, *1+ (Appellate Brief) (9th Cir. May 21,
2010) Brief of Amicus Curiae Indian Tribes and National Congress of Amer-
ican Indians in Support of Appellants/Cross-Appellees the Honorable Gary
Larance and Jolene Marshall (NO. 09-17349, 09-17357) " HN: 2,8,10
(S.Ct.)
1453 WATER WHEEL CAMP RECREATIONAL AREA, INC., Plaintiff-
Cross-Appellant, Robert Johnson, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Gary LARANCE, in his
official capacity as Chief and Presiding Judge of the Colorado River Indian
Tribes Tribal Court, and Jolene Marshall, in her official capacity as Clerk of the
Colorado River Indian Tribes Tribal Court, Defendants-Appel-
lants-Cross-Appellees., 2010 WL 5853533, *1+ (Appellate Brief) (9th Cir. May
21, 2010) Brief for the United States As Amicus Curiae in Support of Tribal
Defendants-Appellants (NO. 09-17349, 09-17357) " HN: 8,10,16
(S.Ct.)
1454 WATER WHEEL CAMP RECREATION AREA, INC., et al., Appellees/
Cross-Appellants, v. The Honorable Gary LARANCE, et al., Appellants/ Cross-
Appellees., 2010 WL 5166813, *5166813+ (Appellate Brief) (9th Cir. May 21,
2010) Motion of Indian Tribes and National Congress of American Indians
for Leave to File a Joint Amicus Curiae Brief in Support of Appellants/
Cross-Appellees the Honorable Gary Larance and Jolene Marshall (NO.
09-17349, 09-17357)
1455 WATER WHEEL CAMP RECREATIONAL AREA, INC., Plaintiff-
Cross-Appellant, Robert Johnson, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Gary LARANCE, in his

official capacity as Chief and Presiding Judge of the Colorado River Indian
Tribes Tribal Court, and Jolene Marshall, in her official capacity as Clerk of the
Colorado River Indian Tribes Tribal Court, Defendants-Appel-
lants-Cross-Appellees., 2010 WL 5166815, *5166815+ (Appellate Brief) (9th
Cir. May 21, 2010) Brief for the United States As Amicus Curiae in Support
of Tribal Defendants-Appellants (NO. 09-17349, 09-17357)
1456 WATER WHEEL CAMP RECREATIONAL AREA, INC., And Robert Johnson,
Appellees/Cross-Appellants, v. THE HONORABLE GARY LARANCE, And
Jolene Marshall, Appellants/Cross-Appellees., 2010 WL 5853529, *1+
(Appellate Brief) (9th Cir. May 14, 2010) Appellants' Principal Brief (NO.
09-17349, 09-17357) " HN: 8,12,16 (S.Ct.)
Marshall, Appellants/Cross-Appellees., 2010 WL 5166812, *5166812+
(Appellate Brief) (9th Cir. May 14, 2010) Appellants' Principal Brief (NO.
09-17349, 09-17357)
1458 Amber LANPHERE and Paul Matheson, Appellants, v. Chad WRIGHT and The
Puyallup Indian Tribe, Appellees., 2010 WL 1219021, *1219021+ (Appellate
Brief) (9th Cir. Mar 18, 2010) Response Brief of Appellees Puyallup Tribe of
Indians and Chad Wright (NO. 09-36035) " HN: 5,8,10 (S.Ct.)
1459 Nisqually Indian TRIBE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Christine GREGOIRE, Governor
of the State of Washington, et al., Defendants-Appellees., 2010 WL 5078941,
*5078941+ (Appellate Brief) (9th Cir. Mar 01, 2010) Response Brief of Ap-
pellee David Lopeman (NO. 09-35725)
1460 STOP THE CASINO 101 COALITION, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Ken
SALAZAR, Secretary of the United Stated Department of the Interior, et al., De-
fendants-Appellees, Federated Indians of Graton Rancheria, Intervenor-Ap-
pellee., 2009 WL 7218559, *7218559+ (Appellate Brief) (9th Cir. Nov 02, 2009)
Brief for Amici Curiae City of Petaluma, City of Sebastopol, and City of
Cloverdale in Support of Appellants (NO. 09-16294, 09-16297)
1461 SALT RIVER PROJECT AGRICULTURAL IMPROVEMENT AND POWER
DISTRICT, a municipal corporation and political subdivision of the State of Ari-
zona; et al., Plaintiffs - Appellants, v. Reynold R. LEE; et al., Defendants - Ap-
pellees., 2009 WL 6416025, *6416025+ (Appellate Brief) (9th Cir. Sep 21, 2009)
Appellants' Reply Brief (NO. 09-15306) HN: 36 (S.Ct.)
zona; et al., v. Reynold R. LEE; et al., 2009 WL 6416024, *6416024+ (Appellate
Brief) (9th Cir. Aug 14, 2009) Appellees' Response Brief (NO. 09-15306) "
HN: 8,10,24 (S.Ct.)
1463 Eugene Little COYOTE, President Northern Cheyenne Tribe on behalf of the
Northern Cheyenne Tribe and himself, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. UNITED STATES
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Edward Parisi-

an, Regional Director, and Marjorie Eagleman, Superintendent of the Northen
Cheyenne Reservation, Defendants/Appellees., 2009 WL 3478252, *3478252+
(Appellate Brief) (9th Cir. Aug 13, 2009) Eugene Little Coyote's Opening Brief
(NO. 09-35527) HN: 5 (S.Ct.)
zona, Headwaters Resources, Inc., a Utah corporation, Appellants, v. Reynold R.
LEE, Casey Watchman, Woody Lee, Peterson Yazzie, Evelyn Meadows, Honor-
able Herb Yazzie, Honorable Louise G. Grant, Honorable Eleanor Shirley, Ap-
pellees., 2009 WL 6416023, *6416023+ (Appellate Brief) (9th Cir. Jul 31, 2009)
Appellees' Response Brief (NO. 09-15306) " HN: 10,11,21 (S.Ct.)
1465 Hilda L. SOLIS, Secretary of Labor, United States Department of Labor,
Plaintiff-Appellee, v. THE SPOKANE TRIBE OF INDIANS, d/b/a Chewelah
Casino, Defendant-Appellant., 2009 WL 4611276, *4611276+ (Appellate Brief)
(9th Cir. Apr 27, 2009) Brief for the Secretary of Labor (NO. 08-35847)
HN: 34 (S.Ct.)
1466 Elaine L. CHAO, Secretary of Labor, United States Department of Labor,
Plaintiff-Appellee, v. THE SPOKANE TRIBE OF INDIANS, dba Chewelah
Casino, Defendant-Appellant., 2009 WL 4611275, *4611275+ (Appellate Brief)
(9th Cir. Jan 21, 2009) Brief of Appellant the Spokane Tribe of Indians (NO.
08-35847) HN: 23 (S.Ct.)
1467 Valinda Jo ELLIOT, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. WHITE MOUNTAIN APACHE TRI-
BAL COURT; Honorable John Doe Tribal Judge; and white Mountain Apache
Tribe, Defendant/Appellee., 2008 WL 2442239, *2442239+ (Appellate Brief)
(9th Cir. May 15, 2008) Appellant's Reply Brief (NO. 07-15041)
1468 INTERIOR REGIONAL HOUSING AUTHORITY, a Public Corporation and
Tribally Designated Housing Entity, Appellant and cross-Appellee, v. Barbara
ALMQUIST, individually, The Village of Dot Lake aka the Native Village of
Dot Lake, the President and the Secretary of Dot Lake Traditional Council, in
Their Official Capacities, and John Does No. 1-3, All in Their Official Capacit-
ies, Appellees and cross-Appellants., 2008 WL 2131154, *2131154+ (Appellate
Brief) (9th Cir. Apr 09, 2008) Reply Brief (NO. 07-35174, 07-35175) "
HN: 5,8 (S.Ct.)
1469 Valinda Jo ELLIOTT, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. WHITE MOUNTAIN APACHE
TRIBAL COURT; Honorable John Doe Tribal Judge; and White Mountain
Apache Tribe, Defendants/Appellees., 2008 WL 891120, *891120+ (Appellate
Brief) (9th Cir. Feb 14, 2008) Defendants'/Appellees' Response Brief (NO.
07-15041) " HN: 8 (S.Ct.)
1470 Valinda Jo ELLIOT, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. WHITE MOUNTAIN APACHE TRI-
BAL COURT; Honorable John Doe Tribal Judge; and White Mountain Apache
Tribe, Defendant/Appellee., 2008 WL 656577, *656577+ (Appellate Brief) (9th
Cir. Feb 07, 2008) Appellant's Opening Brief (NO. 07-15041) HN: 11
(S.Ct.)

1471 EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v. PEABODY WESTERN COAL COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee, and THE
NAVAJO NATION, Rule 19, Defendant-Appellee., 2007 WL 4732451,
*4732451+ (Appellate Brief) (9th Cir. Dec 10, 2007) Reply Brief of Equal Em-
ployment Opporunity Commission As Appellant (NO. 06-17261)
1472 Elaine L. CHAO, Secretary of Labor, United States Department of Labor,
Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Paul MATHESON, an individual d/b/a Baby Zack's Smoke
Shop and Nick Matheson, an individual, Defendants-Appellants., 2007 WL
4755544, *4755544+ (Appellate Brief) (9th Cir. Nov 30, 2007) Brief for the
Secretary of Labor (NO. 07-35633) HN: 23 (S.Ct.)
1473 INTERIOR REGIONAL HOUSING AUTHORITY, a Public Corporation and
Tribally Designated Housing Entity, Appellant, v. Barbara ALMQUIST, indi-
vidually, The Village of Dot Lake aka The Native Village of Dot Lake, William
J. Miller, Charles P. Miller and John Does No. 1-3, all in their official capacities,
Appellees., 2007 WL 4102429, *4102429+ (Appellate Brief) (9th Cir. Oct 15,
2007) Appellant's Brief (NO. 07-35174, 07-35175) "
1474 Skokomish Indian TRIBE, Plaintiff-Appellant, Lower Elwha Klallam Tribe, In-
tervenor-Appellant, v. Port Gamble S'Klallam TRIBE and Jamestown S'Klallam
Tribe, Defendants-Appellees., 2007 WL 2885906, *2885906+ (Appellate Brief)
(9th Cir. Aug 24, 2007) Reply Brief of Appellant Skokomish Indian Tribe
(NO. 07-35062, 07-35124) " HN: 19,21 (S.Ct.)
1475 Skokomish Indian TRIBE, Plaintiff-Appellant, Lower Elwha Klallam Tribe, In-
tervenor-Appellant, v. Port Gamble S'Klallam TRIBE and Jamestown S'Klallam
Tribe, Defendants-Appellees., 2007 WL 1994754, *1994754+ (Appellate Brief)
(9th Cir. Jun 05, 2007) Brief of Appellant Skokomish Indian Tribe (NO.
07-35062, 07-35124) " HN: 19 (S.Ct.)
1476 Bret ALAN HAGENNO, Petitioner-Appellant, v. M. YARBOROUGH, Warden,
Respondent-Appellee., 2007 WL 1302851, *1302851 (Appellate Brief) (9th Cir.
Mar 07, 2007) Appellant's Opening Brief (NO. 05-56758)
1477 PHILIP MORRIS USA INC., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. KING MOUNTAIN TO-
BACCO COMPANY, INC.; Mountain Tobacco; Delbert L. Wheeler, Sr.; and
Richard ""Kip"" Ramsey, Defendants-Appellees., 2007 WL 477757, *477757+
(Appellate Brief) (9th Cir. Jan 05, 2007) Opening Brief of Appellant Philip
Morris USA Inc. (NO. 06-36066)
1478 PEARL ALVARADO, et al., Plaintiffs/Appellants, v. TABLE MOUNTAIN
RANCHERIA, et al., Defendants/Appellees., 2006 WL 2701314, *2701314+
(Appellate Brief) (9th Cir. Aug 14, 2006) Appellees' Responsive Brief (NO.
06-15351) HN: 10 (S.Ct.)
1479 THE UNITED STATES, Plaintiff-Appellant/Cross-Appellee, v. PARK PLACE
ASSOCIATES, LTD., George Hardie, and Kard King, Inc., Defendants-Ap-
pellees/Cross-Appellants., 2006 WL 6202355, *6202355+ (Appellate Brief) (9th
Cir. Jan 24, 2006) Opening and Response Brief of Appellees/Cross-Appellants
Park Place Associates, Ltd., George Hardie, and Kard King, Inc. (NO.

05-56235, 05-56312) " HN: 20 (S.Ct.)
ASSOCIATES, LTD., George Hardie, and Kard King, Inc, Defendants-Ap-
Cir. Jan 23, 2006) Opening and Response Brief of Appellees/Cross-Appellants
Park Place Associates, Ltd., George Hardie, and Kard King, Inc. (NO.
05-56235, 05-56312) " HN: 20 (S.Ct.)
ASSOCIATES, LTD., George Hardie, Kard King, Inc., Defendants-Ap-
Cir. Dec 12, 2005) Opening Brief for Plaintiff-Appellant/Cross-Appellee (NO.
05-56235, 05-56312) HN: 20 (S.Ct.)
1482 SONOMA COUNTY FIRE CHIEF, Petitioner-Appellant, v. DRY CREEK
RANCHERIA BAND OF POMO INDIANS, Respondent-Appellee., 2005 WL
4147038, *4147038+ (Appellate Brief) (9th Cir. Oct 25, 2005) Brief of Appellee
The Dry Creek Rancheria Band of Pomo Indians (NO. 05-16011) " HN:
1,2,28 (S.Ct.)
1483 James Richard SMITH, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Salish Kootenai COLLEGE, a
Montana Corporation, and the Court of Appeals of the Confederated Salish and
Kootenai Tribes of the Flathead Reservation Defendants-Appellees., 2005 WL
2327187, *2327187+ (Appellate Brief) (9th Cir. Jun 14, 2005) Amicus Curiae
Brief of the na Tional Congress of American Indians in Support of the Salish
Kootenai College and the Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes of the
Fla Thead Reservation (NO. 03-35306) " HN: 1,5,28 (S.Ct.)
1484 Thomas Lee MORRIS, a minor child, by and through his guardians, his natural
parents, Elizabeth S. Morris and Roland J. Morris, Sr., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v.
Judge TANNER, Judge of the Confederated Salish and Kootenai Indian Tribal
Court for the Flathead Reservation, Defendant-Appellee, United States of Amer-
ica, Defendant Intervenor - Appellee., 2004 WL 2408572, *2408572+ (Appellate
Brief) (9th Cir. Sep 20, 2004) Appellants' Reply Brief (NO. 03-35922) HN:
20 (S.Ct.)
1485 Russell MEANS, Petitioner/Appellant, v. Navajo NATION, federally recognized
Indian Tribe; and Honorable Ray Gilmore, Judge, United States District Court,
Chinle, Navajo Nation, Arizona, Respondents/Appellees., 2004 WL 4783005,
*4783005+ (Appellate Brief) (9th Cir. Sep 07, 2004) Brief of Amicus Curiae
Thomas Lee Morris and Elizabeth Morris, Supporting Russell Means (NO.
01-17489)
1486 Edward ARVISO, et al., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Gale NORTON, Secretary of the
Interior, et al., Defendants-Appellees, Rincon San Luiseno Band of Mission Indi-
ans, Intervenors-Appellees., 2004 WL 1935795, *1935795 (Appellate Brief) (9th
Cir. Jul 29, 2004) Appellants' Reply Brief (NO. 03-56893)
1487 Mary DOE, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. John DOE I, et al., Defendants and Ap-
pellees., 2004 WL 1808209, *1808209+ (Appellate Brief) (9th Cir. May 27,

2004) Plaintiff-Appellant's Opening Brief (NO. 04-15477) " HN: 23
(S.Ct.)
1488 KIMBERLY ASSOCIATES, an Idaho Limited Partnership, Plaintiff-Appellee, v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant-Appellee. Ann Doe, Applicant in
Intervention-Appellant., 2003 WL 22593733, *22593733+ (Appellate Brief) (9th
Cir. Sep 22, 2003) Opening Brief of Appellant Ann Doe (NO. 02-36165,
03-35422(WITH02-3616) HN: 18,21 (S.Ct.)
1489 Kurt SNYDER, et al., Plaintiffs/Appellants, v. THE NAVAJO NATION, Defend-
ant/Appellee., 2003 WL 22670565, *22670565+ (Appellate Brief) (9th Cir. Sep
02, 2003) Brief of Appellee, The Navajo Nation (NO. 02-16632, 03-15395)
HN: 23 (S.Ct.)
1490 Coeur D'Alene TRIBE & Shoshone-Bannock Tribes, Plaintiffs-Ap-
pellees-Cross-Appellants, Nez Perce Tribe, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Duwayne D.
HAMMOND, Jr. et al., Defendants-Appellants-Cross-Appellees., 2003 WL
23713330, *23713330+ (Appellate Brief) (9th Cir. Jun 02, 2003) Brief of the
Plaintiffs-Appellees-Cross-Appellants Coeur D'Alene Tribe and Shoshone-
Bannock Tribes, and Plaintiff-Appellee Nez Perce Tribe (NO. 02-35965,
02-35998, 02-36020) " HN: 23,27 (S.Ct.)
1491 Terrance C. PROSCHOLD, et al., Plaintiff-Appellants, v UNITED STATES OF
AMERICA, Defendant-Appellee, Dry Creek Rancheria Band of Pomo Indians,
Intervenor-Defendant-Appellee, 2003 WL 22670587, *22670587+ (Appellate
Brief) (9th Cir. Mar 13, 2003) Brief of Intervenor-Defendant-Appellee Dry
Creek Rancheria Band of Pomo Indians (NO. 02-16655) HN: 34 (S.Ct.)
1492 ARTICHOKE JOE'S, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Gale A. NORTON, Secret-
ary of Interior, et al., Defendants-Appellees',, 2003 WL 22670320, *22670320+
(Appellate Brief) (9th Cir. Feb 2003) Defendant-Appellee Brief (NO. 02-16508)
" HN: 2 (S.Ct.)
1493 FORD MOTOR COMPANY, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Joe R. TODECHEENE and
Mary Todecheene, as the Surviving Natural Parents of Esther Todecheene, De-
ceased, Defendants, District Courts of the NAVAJO NATION, et al., Defendants-
Appellants., 2003 WL 22057176, *22057176+ (Appellate Brief) (9th Cir. Jan 23,
2003) Opening Brief of Appellant Navajo Nation (NO.
(WITHAPPEAL02-17048), APPEAL02-17165, CV-02-1100-PCT-PGR)
HN: 24 (S.Ct.)
1494 FORD MOTOR COMPANY, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Joe R. TODECHEENE and
Mary Todecheene, as the surviving natural parents of Esther Todecheene, de-
ceased, Defendants, District Court of the Navajo Nation, et al., Defendants-Appel-
lants., 2003 WL 22669957, *22669957+ (Appellate Brief) (9th Cir. Jan 23, 2003)
Opening Brief of Appellant Navajo Nation (NO. 02-17165(WITHAPPEAL0)
HN: 10,24 (S.Ct.)
1495 FORD MOTOR COMPANY, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. Joe R. and Mary TODE-
CHEENE, as the Surviving Natural Parents of Esther Todecheene, Deceased; et.
al., Defendants - Appellants, NAVAJO NATIONS DISTRICT COURTS, et al.,

Defendants., 2003 WL 22057175, *22057175 (Appellate Brief) (9th Cir. Jan 09,
2003) Appellants Todecheene's Opening Brief (NO. 02-17048, 02-17165) "
HN: 20 (S.Ct.)
1496 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Petitioner - Appellee, TEAM-
STERS LOCAL 228, Intervenor - Appellant, v. CHAPA-DE INDIAN HEALTH
PROGRAM, INC.; Carol Ervin; Susan Thorn, Respondents - Appellees. NA-
TIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Petitioner - Appellee, TEAMSTERS
LOCAL 228, Intervenor, v. CHAPA-DE INDIAN HEALTH PROGRAM, INC.;
Carol Ervin; Susan Thorn, Respondents - Appellants., 2002 WL 32103882, *1+
(Appellate Brief) (9th Cir. Sep 03, 2002) Consolidated Opening Brief of Re-
spondents/Appellants and Responsive Brief of Respondents/Appellees (NO.
02-15576, 02-15610) " HN: 23 (S.Ct.)
1497 Russell MEANS, Petitioner/Appellant. v. Navajo Nation, federally recognized In-
dian Tribe; and Honorable Ray GILMORE, Judge, United States District Court,
Chinle, Navajo Nation, Arizona. Respondents/Appellees,, 2002 WL 32145676,
*32145676+ (Appellate Brief) (9th Cir. Apr 04, 2002) (NO. 01-17489,
99-CV-1057-PCT-EHC-S) HN: 8 (S.Ct.)
1498 Gordon B. SAUCERMAN, et al, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Gale NORTON, Sec-
retary of the Interior, et al., Defendants-Appellees., 2002 WL 32113263,
*32113263+ (Appellate Brief) (9th Cir. Apr 01, 2002) Appellants' Reply Brief
(NO. 01-17009) HN: 2 (S.Ct.)
1499 Gordon B. SAUCERMAN, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. GALE NORTON, Sec-
retary of the Interior, et al., Defendants-Respondents., 2002 WL 32113262,
*32113262+ (Appellate Brief) (9th Cir. Feb 22, 2002) Tribal Respondents'
Brief (NO. 01-17009) HN: 2 (S.Ct.)
1500 STATE ENGINEER OF THE STATE OF NEVADA, et al., Petitioners/Ap-
pellees/Cross-Appellants, Pershing County Water Conservation District Petition-
er/Intervenor/Appellee, v. SOUTH FORK BAND OF THE TE-MOAK TRIBE
OF WESTERN SHOSHONE INDIANS OF NEVADA, et al., Respondents/Appel-
lants/Cross-Appellees, United States of America, Respondent - Appellants., 2001
WL 35766774, *35766774+ (Appellate Brief) (9th Cir. Dec 14, 2001) Tribal
Appellants Opening Brief (NO. 00-17146, 00-17172, 00-17173, 00-17175)
HN: 22 (S.Ct.)
1501 THE BURLINGTON NORTHERN AND SANTA FE RAILWAY CO., Plaintiff-
Appellee, v. ASSINIBOINE AND SIOUX TRIBES OF THE FORT PECK INDI-
AN RESERVATION; Arlyn Headdress, Chairman of the Fort Peck Tribal Exec-
utive Board; Mervyn Shields, Director, Tax Department of the Assiniboine and
Sioux Tribes, Defendants-Appellants., 2001 WL 34093351, *34093351+
(Appellate Brief) (9th Cir. Nov 28, 2001) Reply Brief for the Appellants (NO.
01-35681)
1502 Steven SHARBER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SPIRIT MOUNTAIN GAMING,
INC., Defendant-Appelle., 2001 WL 34108242, *34108242+ (Appellate Brief)
(9th Cir. Oct 11, 2001) Brief of Defendant-Appellee (NO. 01-35500) " HN:

23 (S.Ct.)
1503 THE BURLINGTON NORTHERN AND SANTA FE RAILWAY CO., Plaintiff-
Appellee, v. ASSINIBOINE AND SIOUX TRIBES OF THE FORT PECK INDI-
AN RESERVATION; Arlyn Headdress, Chairman of the Fort Peck Tribal Exec-
utive Board; Mervyn Shields, Director, Tax Department of the Assiniboine and
Sioux Tribes, Defendants-Appellants., 2001 WL 34093353, *34093353+
(Appellate Brief) (9th Cir. Sep 24, 2001) Brief for the Appellants (NO.
01-35681) " HN: 24,34 (S.Ct.)
1504 CID ENTERPRISES, INC. and Cynthia L. Barnedt, Appellants, v. WALLOWA
FOREST PRODUCTS, L.L.C., Appellee/Cross-Appellant., 2001 WL 34104548,
*34104548+ (Appellate Brief) (9th Cir. Aug 2001) Brief of Appellee/Cross Ap-
pellant. (NO. 00-35927, 00-35941) HN: 8,10 (S.Ct.)
1505 Thomas Lee MORRIS (a minor), by his parents as guardians ad litem, Plaintiff/
Appellant, v. Judge TANNER, Judge of the Confederated Salish and Kootenai In-
dian Tribal Court for the Flathead Reservation, Defendant/Appellee., 2001 WL
34113926, *34113926+ (Appellate Brief) (9th Cir. Feb 26, 2001) Amicus Brief
for the United States in Support of Appellee Seeking Affirmance of the Dis-
trict Court's Dismissal of Plaintiff's Complaint (NO. 99-36007)
1506 Thomas Lee MORRIS, a minor child, by and through his guardians, his natural
parents, Elizabeth S. Morris and Roland J. Morris, Sr.; Plaintiffs-Appellants, v.
Judge TANNER, Judge of the Confederated Salish and Kootenai Indian Tribal
Court for the Flathead Reservation, Defendant-Appellee., 2000 WL 33996603,
*33996603 (Appellate Brief) (9th Cir. May 24, 2000) Appellants' Initial Brief
(NO. 99-36007)
1507 John DEMONTINEY, d/b/a Earthwalker Engineering, Plaintiff/Appellant, v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, on behalf of its agency, the Department of In-
terior, Bureau of Indian Affairs and Chippewa Cree Tribe, Defendants/Ap-
pellees., 2000 WL 34004460, *34004460+ (Appellate Brief) (9th Cir. Mar 28,
2000) Brief for Appellee Chippewa Cree Tribe (NO. 99-35874) HN:
5,10,11 (S.Ct.)
1508 John DEMONTINEY, d/b/a Earthwalker Engineering, Plaintiff/Appellant, v.
terior, Bureau of Indian Affairs and Chippewa Cree Tribe, Defendants/Ap-
pellees., 2000 WL 34004790, *34004790+ (Appellate Brief) (9th Cir. Mar 28,
2000) Brief for Appellee Chippewa Cree Tribe (NO. 99-35874) HN:
5,10,11 (S.Ct.)
1509 Arthur L. MCDONALD, Rita McDonald, Karla McDonald, and Justin D. Mc-
Donald, Plaintiffs - Appellees, v. Patti MEANS and Kale Means, Defendants -
Appellants., 2000 WL 34012374, *34012374+ (Appellate Brief) (9th Cir. Mar 06,
2000) Brief of Appellants (NO. 00-35002)
1510 John DEMONTINEY, d/b/a Earthwalker Engineering, Plaintiff-Appellant, v.
terior, Bureau of Indian Affairs and Chippewa Cree Tribe, Defendant-Appellee.,

2000 WL 34004574, *34004574+ (Appellate Brief) (9th Cir. Feb 11, 2000) Ap-
pellant's Opening Brief (NO. 99-35874) HN: 6,24,34 (S.Ct.)
1511 Mary Ann NUGENT, Individually and as the Class Representative, et al.,
Plaintiffs/Appellants, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Department of
Justice, Defendants. UNITED STATES OF IMMIGRATION AND NATURAL-
IZATION SERVICE, et al., Defendants/Appellants., 2000 WL 34216779,
*34216779+ (Appellate Brief) (9th Cir. Feb 07, 2000) Appellants Opening Brief
(NO. 99-55972) HN: 21 (S.Ct.)
1512 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff/Appellee, v. Harold RIDLEY, De-
fendant/Appellant., 2000 WL 34216556, *34216556+ (Appellate Brief) (9th Cir.
Feb 03, 2000) Brief for the United States (NO. 99-10441) HN: 23 (S.Ct.)
1513 BIG HORN COUNTY ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, INC., Plaintiffs and Ap-
pellees, v. Denis ADAMS, et al., Defendants and Appellants., 2000 WL
33997508, *33997508+ (Appellate Brief) (9th Cir. Feb 01, 2000) Appellants'
Reply Brief (NO. 99-35799)
1514 BIG HORN COUNTY ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, INC., a Montana Corpora-
tion, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Denis ADAMS, et al., Defendant-Appellants., 2000
WL 33997507, *33997507+ (Appellate Brief) (9th Cir. Jan 18, 2000) Brief of
Appellee (NO. 99-35799)
1515 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. Izaak William JOHN-
SON, Defendant/Appellee., 1999 WL 33636928, *33636928+ (Appellate Brief)
(9th Cir. Nov 08, 1999) Brief for the United States (NO. 99-30262) HN: 33
(S.Ct.)
1516 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff/Appellee, v. Melvin LILLEY, De-
fendant/Appellant., 1999 WL 33622684, *33622684+ (Appellate Brief) (9th Cir.
Nov 01, 1999) Brief for the United States (NO. 99-30203)
1517 BIG HORN COUNTY ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, INC., Plaintiffs and Ap-
pellees, v. Denis ADAMS, et al., Defendants and Appellants., 1999 WL
pellants (NO. 99-35799)
1518 Roberta BUGENIG, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. HOOPA VALLEY TRIBE; The
Hoopa Valley Tribal Council; The Tribal Court of the Hoopa Valley Tribal Re-
servation; Byron Nelson, Jr., Honorable Judge of the Hoopa Valley Tribal Court;
Merv George, Chairman of the Hoopa Valley Tribal Council, Defendants-Ap-
pellees., 1999 WL 33623821, *33623821+ (Appellate Brief) (9th Cir. Sep 29,
1999) Plaintiff-Appellant's Reply Brief (NO. 99-15654)
1519 Kimberly ASSOCIATES, an Idaho Limited Partnership, Plaintiff/Appellant, v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant/Federal Appellee., 1999 WL
33608549, *33608549+ (Appellate Brief) (9th Cir. Aug 20, 1999) Federal Ap-
pellee's Brief (NO. 99-35188) HN: 19,21 (S.Ct.)
1520 CABAZON BAND OF MISSION INDIANS; Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Larry D.
SMITH, individually and in his capacity as Sheriff of Riverside County; et al.,
Defendant-Appellees., 1999 WL 33625953, *33625953 (Appellate Brief) (9th

Cir. Aug 02, 1999) Appellants' Opening Brief (NO. 99-55229)
1521 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff/Appellee, v. Johnna L. WALTER,
Defendant/Appellant., 1999 WL 33627297, *33627297+ (Appellate Brief) (9th
Cir. Aug 02, 1999) Brief for the United States (NO. 99-10098)
1522 Kimberly ASSOCIATES, an Idaho limited partnership, Plaintiff/Appellant, v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant/Appellee., 1999 WL 33611820,
*33611820+ (Appellate Brief) (9th Cir. Jun 21, 1999) Appellant's Brief (NO.
99-35188) HN: 21 (S.Ct.)
1523 Kimberly ASSOCIATES, an Idaho limited partnership, Plaintiff/Appellant, v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant/Appellee., 1999 WL 33636458,
*33636458+ (Appellate Brief) (9th Cir. Jun 21, 1999) Appellant's Brief (NO.
99-35188) HN: 21 (S.Ct.)
1524 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. Michael L. ENAS, De-
fendant/Appellee., 1999 WL 33631433, *33631433+ (Appellate Brief) (9th Cir.
May 13, 1999) Brief for the United States (NO. 99-10049) HN: 33 (S.Ct.)
1525 KLAMATH WATER USERS PROTECTION ASSOCIATION, Klamath Drain-
age District, Sam Henzel, and Henzel Properties, Ltd., Plaintiffs/
Counter-Defendants/Appellants, v. Roger PATTERSON, Karl E. Wirkus, Eluid
Martinez, Patricia Beneke, Bruce Babbitt, United States Bureau of Reclamation,
and United States of America, Defendants/Appellees, Pacificorp, Defendant/
Counter-Claimant/Appellee, Yurok Tribe, Intervenor/Defendant/Appellee., 1999
WL 33757680, *33757680+ (Appellate Brief) (9th Cir. Jan 08, 1999) Answering
Brief of Defendant/Counter-Claimant/Appellee Pacificorp (NO. 98-35708) "
HN: 18,19,21 (S.Ct.)
1526 BURLINGTON NORTHERN RAILROAD COMPANY, Plaintiff/Appellee, v.
ESTATES OF RED WOLF AND BULL TAIL, et al., Defendants/Appellants.
THE CROW TRIBE OF INDIANS, Defendant/Intervenor/Appellant., 1998 WL
34105188, *34105188+ (Appellate Brief) (9th Cir. Sep 14, 1998) Brief of the
Crow Tribe of Indians, Defendant/Intervenor/Appellant (NO. 98-35502,
98-35539, 98-35541) " HN: 5,8,23 (S.Ct.)
.... AUSTIN'S EXPRESS, INC., et al., Plaintiffs and Appellees, v. Ron ARNESON,
Defendant-Appellant, Linda DUST, Defendant-Appellant. (Appellate Brief) (9th
Cir. Sep 09, 1998) Appellants' Joint Reply Brief (NO. 98-35373) (Text
not available on WESTLAW)
.... AUSTIN'S EXPRESS, INC., et al., Plaintiffs and Apellees, v. Ron ARNESON,
Defendant, Linda DUST, Defendant-Appellant. (Appellate Brief) (9th Cir. Jul 28,
1998) Brief of Appellant Ron Arneson, Special Judge of the Tribal Court of
the Crow Tribe of Indians (NO. 98-35406) (Text not available on
WESTLAW)
1529 STATE OF MONTANA, Montana, Department of Transportation, Plaintiff-
Respondent, v. Tracy KING, personally and in his capacity as President, Fort
Belknap Indian Community Council, Fort Belknap; Bruce ""Buzz"" Doney, per-
sonally and in his capacity as Director, Fort Belknap Tribal Employment Rights

Office; and Grant Cochran, personally and in his capacity as Compliance Officer,
Fort Belknap Tribal Employment Rights Office, Defendants-Appellants., 1998
WL 34202700, *34202700+ (Appellate Brief) (9th Cir. Apr 23, 1998) Opening
Brief of Defendants-Appellants (NO. 98-35002) "
1530 ALLSTATE INDEMNITY COMPANY, an Illinois corporation, Plaintiff/Ap-
pellant, v. Vina STUMP, as personal representative of the Estate of Harold
Stump, and Vernon The Boy as personal representative of the Estate of Victor
The Boy; Arthur Windy Boy, Associate Judge, Chippewa Cree Tribal Court, in
his official capacity only., Defendants/Appellees., 1998 WL 34100157,
*34100157+ (Appellate Brief) (9th Cir. Apr 15, 1998) Reply Brief (NO.
97-35822) " HN: 8,10,11 (S.Ct.)
1531 ALLSTATE INDEMNITY COMPANY, an Illinois corporation, Plaintiff/Ap-
pellant, v. Vina STUMP, as personal representative of the Estate of Harold
Stump, and Vernon the Boy, as personal representative of the Estate of Victor
The Boy; Arthur Windy Boy, Associate Judge, Chippewa Cree Tribal Court, in
his official capacity only., Defendants/Appellees., 1998 WL 34100158,
*34100158+ (Appellate Brief) (9th Cir. Mar 1998) Brief for Appellee Arthur
Windy Boy, Chippewa Cree Tribal Court (NO. 97-35822) HN: 5,10,11
(S.Ct.)
1532 Emmett F. MUNLEY, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Defendant/Appellee., 1998 WL 34192890, *34192890+ (Appellate Brief) (9th
Cir. Jan 12, 1998) Brief of Appellant (NO. 91-4076, 95-15674, 95-15835)
1533 MORONGO BAND OF MISSION INDIANS, a federally recognized Indian
Tribe, Plaintiff-Appellant, v Dennis STACH, Workers' Compensation Appeals
Board for the State of California, and Frederick P. Popanda, Defendants-Ap-
pellees., 1997 WL 33573454, *33573454+ (Appellate Brief) (9th Cir. Oct 06,
1997) Brief for Plaintiff-Appellant (NO. 97-55338) HN: 5 (S.Ct.)
1534 OWENS VALLEY INDIAN HOUSING AUTHORITY, Plaintiff/Appellant, v
Gifford TURNER, Defendant/Appellee., 1997 WL 33633662, *33633662
(Appellate Brief) (9th Cir. Oct 06, 1997) Opening Brief for Appellant (NO.
96-16021)
1535 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Tommy G. CLARK,
Defendant-Appellant., 1997 WL 33554934, *33554934+ (Appellate Brief) (9th
Cir. Sep 22, 1997) Brief of Appellee (NO. 97-10301) HN: 23 (S.Ct.)
1536 VILLAGE OF HOTVELA TRADITIONAL ELDERS; Chief Dan Evehema
Founding Elder of Hotvela, Chief Martin Gashweseoma, Fire Clan Chief; Emery
Holmes, Sr., Hopi Senom Medicine Man, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. INDIAN
HEALTH SERVICE; Don Davis, IHS Director, Phoenix Area, United States En-
vironmental Protection Agency; Felicia Marcus, U.S. EPA Regional Administrat-
or, Region IX; Bureau of Indian Affairs, Walter Mills, BIA Area Director
Phoenix, and Robert Caroline, BIA, 1997 WL 33555461, *33555461+ (Appellate
Brief) (9th Cir. Sep 11, 1997) Brief for Appellees (Hopi Tribal Council and
Ferrell Secakuku, Chairman; Hotevilla Board of Directors, Marilyn

Honuziewa, President, Hotevilla Board of Directors) (NO. 97-15718)
HN: 2,7,20 (S.Ct.)
1537 State of Arizona; Fife Symington, Governor; Petitioners, v. ADMINISTRATOR,
United States Environmental Protection Agency; Yavapai-Apache Tribe; Re-
spondents., 1997 WL 33493392, *33493392+ (Appellate Brief) (9th Cir. Sep 02,
1997) Petition for Review of the Decision of the Environmental Protection
Agency Petitioners' Opening Brief (NO. 96-71083) " HN: 8 (S.Ct.)
1538 VILLAGE OF HOTVELA TRADITIONAL ELDERS; Chief Dan Evehema,
Founding Elder of Hotvela; Chief Martin Gashweseoma, Fire Clan Chief; Emery
Holmes Sr., Hopi Sinom Medicine Man, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. INDIAN
HEALTH SERVICES; Don Davis, IHS Director Phoenix Area; United States En-
vironmental Protection Agency; Felicia Marcus, Regional Administrator, Region
IX, U.S. EPA; Bureau of Indian Affairs; Walter Mills, BIA Area Director,
Phoenix; Robert Carolin, BIA Superintendent,, 1997 WL 33555460, *33555460+
(Appellate Brief) (9th Cir. Jul 12, 1997) Appellants' Brief (NO. 97-15718)
HN: 1 (S.Ct.)
1539 STATE OF NEVADA; William Molina; Michael Spencer; Rich Ellington; Bill
Fitzmorris, Plaintiffs/Appellants, v. Floyd HICKS; Tribal Court in and for the
Paiute-Shoshone Tribes; Joseph Van Walraven, Hon., Defendants/Appellee.,
1997 WL 33487307, *33487307+ (Appellate Brief) (9th Cir. Apr 02, 1997) Ap-
pellee Floyd Hicks' Answering Brief (NO. 96-17315)
1540 State of Nevada; William Molini; Michael Spencer; Rich Ellington; Bill Fitzmor-
ris, Plaintiffs/Appellants, v. Floyd HICKS; Tribal Court in and for the Paiute-
Shoshone Tribes; Honorable Joseph Van Walraven, Defendants/Appellees., 1997
WL 33493406, *33493406+ (Appellate Brief) (9th Cir. Apr 01, 1997) Tribal De-
fendants/Tribal Appellees' Response Brief (NO. 96-17315) HN: 24
(S.Ct.)
1541 EL PASO NATURAL GAS COMPANY, a Delaware corporation, Plaintiff-Ap-
pellant, v. Laura NEZTSOSIE and Arlinda Neztsosie, Defendants-Appelles.
CYPRUS FOOTE MINERAL COMPANY, a Pennsylvania corporation; Cyprus
Amax Minerals Company, a Delaware corporation, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Zon-
nie Marie Dandy RICHARDS, individually and as representative of the Estate of
Harold J. Richards, Sr., Defendant-Appellee., 1997 WL 33487363, *33487363+
(Appellate Brief) (9th Cir. Jan 13, 1997) Defndants-Appellees' Joint Opening
Brief (NO. 96-17121, 96-17139)
1542 CABAZON BAND OF MISSION INDIANS, a federally recognized Indian
Tribe, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees, Viejas Band of Mission Indians, et al., Inter-
venors-Plaintiffs/Appellees, v. Pete WILSON, Governor, et al., Defendants-Ap-
pellants. Southern California Off-Track Wagering, Inc., et al., Applicant in inter-
vention/Appellants., 1996 WL 33485810, *33485810+ (Appellate Brief) (9th Cir.
Nov 29, 1996) Appellants' Opening Brief (NO. 96-16432) HN: 20,21
(S.Ct.)
1543 State of Montana; Lake County, Montana, City of Ronan, Montana; and Town of

Hot Springs, Montana; Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. UNITED STATES ENVIR-
ONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY; Carol Browner, Administrator; and the
Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes, Defendants and Appellees., 1996 WL
33471419, *33471419+ (Appellate Brief) (9th Cir. Nov 05, 1996) Reply Brief of
Appellants (NO. 96-35508) HN: 8 (S.Ct.)
1544 Rosemarie PINK, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. MODOC INDIAN HEALTH PROJECT,
INC. Indian Health Service, Erin Forrest, an individual, and does One through
Fifty, inclusive, Defendants-Appellees., 1996 WL 33488144, *33488144+
(Appellate Brief) (9th Cir. Nov 05, 1996) Appellees' Response Brief (NO.
96-15923) HN: 12,22 (S.Ct.)
1545 State of Montana; Lake County, Montana; City of Ronan, Montana; and Town of
Hot Springs, Montana, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. UNITED STATES ENVIRON-
MENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY; Carol Browner, Administrator; and the
Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes, Defendants-Appellees., 1996 WL
33471420, *33471420+ (Appellate Brief) (9th Cir. Sep 30, 1996) Brief for the
Federal Appellees (NO. 96-35508) " HN: 8,16,23 (S.Ct.)
1546 State of Montana; Lake County, Montana, City of Ronan, Montana; and Town of
Hot Springs, Montana; Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. UNITED STATES ENVIR-
ONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY; Carol Browner, Administrator; and the
Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes, Defendants and Appellees., 1996 WL
33471418, *33471418+ (Appellate Brief) (9th Cir. Aug 16, 1996) Appellants'
Opening Brief (NO. 96-35508) HN: 8 (S.Ct.)
1547 STATE OF ALASKA, ex rel., Yukon Flats School District, Unalakleet1Neeser
Construction Jv, et al., Plaintiff-Appellees, v. NATIVE VILLAGE OF VENETIE
TRIBAL GOVERNMENT et al., Defendant-Appellants., 1996 WL 33414586,
*33414586+ (Appellate Brief) (9th Cir. Jun 13, 1996) Brief of Appellees (NO.
96-35042) " HN: 1,5 (S.Ct.)
1548 ALYESKA PIPELINE SERVICE COMPANY, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees, State
of Alaska, Intervenor-Plaintiff-Appellee, v. KLUTI KAAH NATIVE VILLAGE
OF COPPER CENTER, et al., Defendants-Appellants., 1996 WL 34424359,
*34424359+ (Appellate Brief) (9th Cir. Jun 12, 1996) Brief of Intervenor-
Plaintiff-Appellee State of Alaska (NO. 95-36292) HN: 8 (S.Ct.)
1549 Mary Jane WILSON, Plaintiff and Appellee, v. Thomas David MARCHINGTON
and Inland Empire Shows, Inc., Defendants and Appellants., 1996 WL 33414702,
*33414702+ (Appellate Brief) (9th Cir. Jun 06, 1996) Brief of Amicus Curiae
State of Montana (NO. 96-35145) HN: 23 (S.Ct.)
1550 Mary Jane WILSON, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. Thomas David MARCHINGTON
and Inland Empire Shows, Inc., Defendants - Appellants., 1996 WL 33414447,
*33414447 (Appellate Brief) (9th Cir. Jun 01, 1996) Brief of Amicus Curiae
Burlington Northern Railroad Company (NO. 96-35145)
1551 YELLOWSTONE COUNTY, a political subdivision of the State of Montana,
Plaintiff and Appellee, v. Carl PEASE, Defendant and Appellant., 1996 WL
33414180, *33414180+ (Appellate Brief) (9th Cir. Apr 15, 1996) Brief of Ap-

pellee (NO. 95-36026)
1552 BURLINGTON NORTHERN RAILROAD COMPANY, a Delaware corporation,
Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ESTATES OF RED WOLF and Bull Tail, Valerie Red
Wolf, Gladys Red Wolf, Randy Red Wolf, Dorrie Bull Tail, Dewey Bull Tail,
and Ronald R. Arneson, Crow Tribal Court Special Judge, Defendants-Appel-
lants., 1996 WL 33470264, *33470264 (Appellate Brief) (9th Cir. Mar 19, 1996)
Brief of Appellants Estates of Red Wolf and Bull Tail, Valerie Red Wolf,
Gladys Red Wolf, Randy Red Wolf, Dorrie Bull Tail, and Dewey Bull Tail
(NO. 96-35254) " HN: 21 (S.Ct.)
1553 YELLOWSTONE COUNTY, a political subdivision of the state of Montana
Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Carl PEASE, Defendant-Appellant., 1996 WL 33490205,
*33490205+ (Appellate Brief) (9th Cir. Mar 04, 1996) Brief of the Appellant
(NO. 95-36026) " HN: 23 (S.Ct.)
Founding Elder of Hotvela, Chief Martin Gashweseoma, Fire Clan Chief, Emery
Holmes, Sr., Hopi Senom Medicine Man, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. INDIAN
HEALTH SERVICE; Don Davis, IHS Director, Phoenix Area, United States En-
vironmental Protection Agency; Felicia Marcus, U.S. EPA Regional Administrat-
or, Region IX; Bureau of Indian Affairs, Walter Mills, BIA Area Director,
Phoenix, and Robert Carolin, BIA, 1996 WL 33486148, *33486148+ (Appellate
Brief) (9th Cir. Feb 14, 1996) Brief for Appellee (Hopi Tribal Council and
Ferrell Secakuku, Chairman) (NO. 95-17367) HN: 2,7,20 (S.Ct.)
Founding Elder of Hotvela; Chief Martin Gashweseoma, Fire Clan Chief; Emery
Holmes Sr., Hopi Sinom Medicine Man, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. INDIAN
HEALTH SERVICES; Don Davis, Ihs Director Phoenix Area; United States En-
vironmental Protection Agency; Felicia Marcus, Regional Administrator, Region
IX, U.S. EPA; Bureau of Indian Affairs; Walter Mills, BIA Area Director,
Phoenix; Robert Carolin, BIA Superintendent,, 1996 WL 33486150, *33486150+
(Appellate Brief) (9th Cir. Jan 12, 1996) Appellants' Brief (NO. 95-17367)
HN: 1 (S.Ct.)
1556 STATE OF MONTANA, Plaintiff1Appellee, v. Toni A. GILHAM, Individually
and as Personal Representative of the Estate of Christine Marie Gilham, de-
ceased, Defendant1Appellant., 1995 WL 17014422, *17014422+ (Appellate
Brief) (9th Cir. Oct 08, 1995) Amicus Curiae Brief of the Blackfeet Tribe in
Support of Appellant Gilham (NO. 96-35766) " HN: 1,23 (S.Ct.)
1557 Ferrell SECAKUKU, Chairman of the Hopi Tribal Council, Appellant, v. THE
NAVAJO NATION, Appellee. PEABODY COAL COMPANY, and Southern
California Edison Company, Cross-Appellants, v. THE NAVAJO NATION,
Cross-Appellee. Ferrell SECAKUKU, Chairman of the Hopi Tribal Council, Ap-
pellant, v. THE NAVAJO NATION, Appellee., 1995 WL 17070269,
*17070269+ (Appellate Brief) (9th Cir. Aug 21, 1995) Reply Brief for Appel-
lant (NO. 94-15647, 94-15650, 94-16622) HN: 23 (S.Ct.)

NAVAJO NATION, Appellee. PEABODY COAL COMPANY, and SOUTH-
ERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY, Cross-Appellants, v. THE NAVAJO
NATION, Cross-Appellee. Ferrell SECAKUKU, Chairman of the Hopi Tribal
Council, Appellant, v. THE NAVAJO NATION, Appellee., 1995 WL 17070271,
*17070271+ (Appellate Brief) (9th Cir. Jul 31, 1995) Reply Brief of Cross-
Appellants (NO. 94-15647, 94-15650, 94-16622) HN: 24 (S.Ct.)
California Edison Co. Cross-Appellants, v. THE NAVAJO NATION, Cross-
Appellee. Ferrell SECAKUKU, Chairman of the Hopi Tribal Council, Appellant,
v. THE NAVAJO NATION, Appellee., 1995 WL 17070270, *17070270+
(Appellate Brief) (9th Cir. Jul 18, 1995) Answering Brief for Appellee/
Cross-Appellee (NO. 94-15647, 94-15650, 94-16622) HN: 4 (S.Ct.)
*17070268+ (Appellate Brief) (9th Cir. Jul 03, 1995) Answering Brief for Ap-
pellant (NO. 94-15647, 94-15650, 94-16622) " HN: 4,23 (S.Ct.)
*17070267+ (Appellate Brief) (9th Cir. Jun 05, 1995) Opening/Answering Brief
of Cross-Appellants (NO. 94-15647, 94-15650, 94-16622) " HN: 4,24,36
(S.Ct.)
1562 THE CROW TRIBE OF INDIANS, Plaintiff and Appellant, United States of
America, Plaintiff-Intervenor and Appellant, v. STATE OF MONTANA, et al.,
Defendants and Appellees., 1995 WL 17116352, *17116352+ (Appellate Brief)
(9th Cir. May 24, 1995) Brief of Appellant Crow Tribe of Indians (NO.
95-35093) HN: 19 (S.Ct.)
1563 GILA RIVER INDIAN COMMUNITY, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. Paul WADDELL,
as Director of the Arizona Department of Revenue, Defendant/Appellee., 1995
WL 17014028, *17014028+ (Appellate Brief) (9th Cir. Feb 23, 1995) Appel-
lant's Opening Brief (NO. 94-16972) " HN: 2,28 (S.Ct.)
1564 COUNTY OF LEWIS, Don Fortney, Thomas F. Myers, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v.
John D. ALLEN, Defendant, v. NEZ PERCE TRIBE, Nez Perce Tribal Court,
Judges of the Nez Perce Tribal Court, Defendants-Appellants., 1995 WL
17014173, *17014173+ (Appellate Brief) (9th Cir. Feb 16, 1995) Appellees'
Opening Brief (NO. 94-35979) HN: 8,23 (S.Ct.)

1565 ARIZONA PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY, an Arizona corporation, Plaintiff,
Appellee/ Cross-Appellant, v. Jayne E. ASPAAS, Office of Navajo Labor Rela-
tions, Virgil Kirk, Sr., Duane Yazzie, Helen Bonnaha, Roger Pablo, Tom Shirley,
Navajo Nation Labor Commission, Honorable Tom Tso, Honorable Homer Blue-
house, Honorable Raymond D. Austin, and Navajo Nation Supreme Court, De-
fendants, Appellants/ Cross-Appellees., 1995 WL 17117310, *17117310+
(Appellate Brief) (9th Cir. Feb 08, 1995) Cross-Appellant's Reply Brief (NO.
93-17029, 93-17075) " HN: 5,10,11 (S.Ct.)
Appellee/Cross-Appellant, v. Jayne E. ASPAAS, Office of Navajo Labor Rela-
fendants, Appellants/Cross-Appellees., 1995 WL 17847049, *17847049+
(Appellate Brief) (9th Cir. Feb 08, 1995) Cross-Appellant's Reply Brief (NO.
93-17075, 93-17079) " HN: 10 (S.Ct.)
1567 COUNTY OF LEWIS, Don Fortney, Thomas F. Myers, Plaintiffs-Appellees v.
John D. ALLEN, Defendant, v. Nez Perce Tribe, Nez Perce Tribal Court, Judges
of the Nez Perce Tribal Court, Defendants-Appellants., 1995 WL 17014044,
*17014044 (Appellate Brief) (9th Cir. Jan 09, 1995) Opening Brief of the Ap-
pellants Nez Perce Tribe, Nez Perce Tribal Court and Judges of the Nez
Perce Tribal Court (NO. 94-35979) "
1568 ARIZONA PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY, an Arizona Corporation, Plaintiff-
tions Virgil Kirk, Sr., Duane Yazzie, Helen Bonnaha, Roger Pablo, Tom Shirley,
fendants-Appellants/Cross-Appellees., 1994 WL 16137894, *16137894+
(Appellate Brief) (9th Cir. Dec 28, 1994) Response Brief for Defendants-Appel-
lants Reply Brief for Defendants/Cross-Appellees (NO. 93-17075, 93-17079) "
HN: 7,20,23 (S.Ct.)
tions, Virgil Kirk, Sr., Duane Yazzie Helen Bonnaha, Roger Pablo, Tom Shirley,
(Appellate Brief) (9th Cir. Dec 28, 1994) Response Brief for Defendants-Appel-
lants Reply Brief for Defendants/Cross-Appellees (NO. 93-17075, 93-17079) "
HN: 20 (S.Ct.)

(Appellate Brief) (9th Cir. Nov 25, 1994) Appellee's Answering Brief and
Cross-Appellant's Opening Brief (NO. 93-17075XAP93-17079) " HN:
6,23 (S.Ct.)
Cross-Appellant's Opening Brief (Corrected) (NO. 93-17075, 93-17079) "

Cross-Appellant's Opening Brief (NO. 93-17075XAP93-17079) " HN: 6
(S.Ct.)
tions, Virgil Kirk, Sr., Duane Yazzie, Helen Bonnaha. Roger Pablo, Tom Shirley,
(Appellate Brief) (9th Cir. Sep 01, 1994) Brief for Defendants-Appellants (NO.
93-17075, 93-17079) HN: 14 (S.Ct.)
1574 AIR TRANSPORT ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v. CITY OF LOS ANGELES, et al., Defendants-Appellees., 1994 WL 16170917,
*16170917+ (Appellate Brief) (9th Cir. Aug 12, 1994) Appellee's Brief (NO.
94-55378) " HN: 30,31 (S.Ct.)
1575 Edwin R. O'NEILL, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. UNITED STATES OF
AMERICA, Department of the Interior, et al., Defendants-Appellees., 1994 WL
16014975, *16014975+ (Appellate Brief) (9th Cir. May 17, 1994) Brief for the
Federal Appellees (NO. 93-17154) HN: 21,22 (S.Ct.)
1576 Edwin R. O'NEILL, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. UNITED STATES OF
AMERICA, Department of the Interior, et al., Defendants-Appellees., 1994 WL
Federal Appellees (NO. 93-17154) HN: 21,22 (S.Ct.)

1577 Lynnette HINSHAW, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Gloria S. MAHLER and Kenneth
J. Mahler, Individually and as Personal Representatives of the Estate of Christian
Devon Mahler, Deceased, Respondents-Appellees, The Confederated Salish &
Kootenai Tribes of the Flathead Nation, Intervenor-Appellee., 1993 WL
13103508, *1+ (Appellate Brief) (9th Cir. Aug 20, 1993) Brief of Appellee (NO.
93-35199) " HN: 8,23,24 (S.Ct.)
1578 Ross MIDDLEMIST, Wayne W. Maughan, Flathead Joint Board of Control,
Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. SECRETARY OF THE UNITED STATES DEPART-
MENT OF INTERIOR, Bruce Babbitt; Director of the Bureau of Indian Affairs,
Portland Area, Stanley M. Speaks; Superintendent of the Bia Flathead Agency,
Ernest Moran, in their official capacities; Members of the Tribal Council of the
Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes, Michael Pablo, Sonny Morigeau, Louis
Adams, Hank Baylor, Fred, 1993 WL 13011128, *13011128+ (Appellate Brief)
(9th Cir. Jul 20, 1993) Appellants' Initial Brief (NO. 93-35315) HN: 4
(S.Ct.)
1579 Lynette HINSHAW, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Gloria S. MAHLER and Kenneth J.
Mahler, Individually and as Personal Representatives of the Estate of Christian
Devon Mahler, Deceased, Respondents-Appellees, Confederated Salish &
13105616, *13105616+ (Appellate Brief) (9th Cir. Jun 30, 1993) Brief of Appel-
lant (NO. 93-35199) " HN: 23,24 (S.Ct.)
1580 Lynette HINSHAW, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Gloria S. MAHLER and Kenneth J.
Mahler, Individually and as Personal Representatives of the Estate of Christian
Devon Mahler, Deceased, Respondents-Appellees, Confederated Salish &
13105615, *13105615+ (Appellate Brief) (9th Cir. 1993) Reply Brief of Appel-
lant Lynette Hinshaw (NO. 93-35199) HN: 8,23 (S.Ct.)
1581 CITY OF IRVING, TEXAS, Intervenor-Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CITY OF HUGO,
OKLAHOMA, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Jess Mark Nichols, et al., Defend-
ants-Appellees., 2010 WL 3736200, *3736200+ (Appellate Brief) (10th Cir. Sep
16, 2010) Defendants-Appellees' Answer Brief (NO. 10-7043, 10-7044) "
HN: 31 (S.Ct.)
1582 UTE MOUNTAIN UTE TRIBE, Plaintiff/Appellee, v. Rick HOMANS, Secretary
of the New Mexico Taxation & Revenue Department and New Mexico Taxation
& Revenue Department, Defendants/Appellants., 2010 WL 1176460, *1176460+
(Appellate Brief) (10th Cir. Mar 18, 2010) Defendants/Appellants' Reply Brief
(NO. 09-2276) HN: 3 (S.Ct.)
1583 MUSCOGEE (CREEK) NATION, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. OKLAHOMA TAX
COMMISSION, et al., Defendants/Appellees., 2009 WL 5069097, *5069097
(Appellate Brief) (10th Cir. Dec 15, 2009) Appellant's Reply Brief (NO.
09-5123)
1584 Muscogee (Creek) NATION, Plaintiff / Appellant, v. OKLAHOMA TAX COM-
MISSION, et al., Defendants / Appellees., 2009 WL 4899129, *4899129+

(Appellate Brief) (10th Cir. Dec 10, 2009) Appellant's Reply Brief (NO.
09-5123)
1585 Bob BURRELL and Susan Burrell, Plaintiffs-Appellees/Cross-Appellants, v. Le-
onard ARMIJO, Defendant-Appellant, Lawrence Montoya, Defendant-
Cross-Appellee., 2009 WL 2493180, *2493180+ (Appellate Brief) (10th Cir. Jul
22, 2009) Reply Brief of Appellant, Leonard Armijo (NO. 09-2034, 09-2039)
HN: 24 (S.Ct.)
1586 NATIVE AMERICAN DISTRIBUTING, a Division of Flat Creek Cattle Co.,
Inc., a Missouri Corporation, and John Dilliner, an individual, Plaintiffs/Peti-
tioners-Appellants, v. SENECA-CAYUGA TOBACCO COMPANY, an enter-
prise of the Seneca-Cayuga Tribe of Oklahoma, Leroy Howard, and Richard
Wood, an individual, Defendants/Respondents-Appellees., 2007 WL 4778996,
*4778996+ (Appellate Brief) (10th Cir. Oct 31, 2007) Brief of Defendants/Ap-
pellees (NO. 07-5104) HN: 20 (S.Ct.)
1587 MINER ELECTRIC, INC. et al, Appellee, v. MUSCOGEE (CREEK) NATION,
Appellant., 2007 WL 1300410, *1300410+ (Appellate Brief) (10th Cir. Mar 22,
2007) Appellant's Principal Brief (NO. 06-5216) " HN: 1,8,10 (S.Ct.)
1588 Rio Grande Silvery MINNOW (Hybognathus Amarus); Southwestern Willow
Flycatcher (Empidonax trailii extimus); Defenders of Wildlife; Forest Auardians;
National Audubon Society; New Mexico Audubon Council; Sierra Club; and
Southwest Environmental Center, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. BUREAU OF RE-
CLAMATION, an agency of the United States; Carl A. Strock, Lt. Gen., Chief of
Engineers, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, an
agency of the United, 2006 WL 2151366, *2151366+ (Appellate Brief) (10th Cir.
Jun 19, 2006) Brief of Federal Defendants-Appellants (NO. 05-2399, 06-2020,
06-2021) HN: 21 (S.Ct.)
1589 PRAIRIE BAND POTAWATOMI NATION, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. Joan
WAGNON, Secretary of the Kansas Department of Revenue, Defendant-Ap-
pellee., 2006 WL 5701169, *5701169+ (Appellate Brief) (10th Cir. Mar 08,
2006) Supplemental Brief for the Appellee Secretary of the Kansas Depart-
ment of Revenue Oral Argument Desired (NO. 05-3218) HN: 8 (S.Ct.)
1590 PRAIRIE BAND POTAWATOMI NATION, Plaintiff/Appellee, v. Joan
WAGNON, Secretary of Revenue, State of Kansas, et al., Defendants/Appel-
lants., 2006 WL 951780, *951780+ (Appellate Brief) (10th Cir. Feb 21, 2006)
Supplemental Brief for the Appellants Secretary of Revenue, State of Kan-
sas, et al. (NO. 03-3322) HN: 8,24 (S.Ct.)
1591 Steven DOBBS, Naomi Dobbs, Appellants, v. ANTHEM BLUE CROSS AND
BLUE SHIELD. A Colorado Insurance Company., 2005 WL 3790759,
*3790759+ (Appellate Brief) (10th Cir. Dec 15, 2005) Corrected Opening Brief
of Appellants Steven Dobbs and Naomi Dobbs (NO. 05-1319) " HN: 23
(S.Ct.)
1592 Don WALTON, Plaintiff, Appellee-Cross-Appellant, v. Tesuque PUEBLO, et al.,
Defendants, Appellants-Cross-Appellees., 2005 WL 5714906, *5714906

(Appellate Brief) (10th Cir. Jul 27, 2005) Brief of Amici Curiae in Support of
Appellants and Reversal of District Court Decision (NO. 04-2305, 04-2310)
HN: 24 (S.Ct.)
1593 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Petitioner-Appellee, v. Leon D. BEAR, indi-
vidually and as Chairman of the Executive Committee, Skull Valley Band of
Goshute Indians of Utah, and Skull Valley Band of Goshute Indians of Utah, Re-
spondents-Appellants., 2005 WL 6194169, *6194169+ (Appellate Brief) (10th
Cir. May 2005) Brief for the Appellee (NO. 04-4250) HN: 23 (S.Ct.)
Goshute Indians of Utah, and Skull VAlley Band of Goshute Indians of Utah, Re-
Cir. Mar 25, 2005) Appellants' Opening Brief (NO. 04-4250) HN: 34
(S.Ct.)
Goshute Indians of Utah, and Skull Valley Band Of Goshute Indians of Utah, Re-
Cir. Mar 25, 2005) Appellants' Opening Brief (NO. 04-4250) HN: 34
(S.Ct.)
1596 SHIVWITS BAND OF PAIUTE INDIANS, Kunz & Company, d/b/a Kunz Out-
door Advertising, a California corporation, Appellees/Plaintiffs and Counterclaim
Defendants, v. STATE OF UTAH; Utah State Dept. of Transportation; and St.
George, a Utah Municipal corp., Appellants/Defendants, Counter-Claimants and
Third-Party Plaintiffs. v. Gayle Norton, in her capacity as Secretary of the United
States Department of the Interior; Neal McCaleb in his capacity as, 2004 WL
2730897, *2730897+ (Appellate Brief) (10th Cir. Oct 19, 2004) Brief of the
Non-Federal Appellees Oral Argument Requested (NO. 03-4274) HN:
17,24 (S.Ct.)
vidually and as Chairman of the Executive Committee, Skull Valley Bank of
Goshute Indians of Utah, and Skull Valley Bank of Goshute Indians of Utah, Re-
Cir. 2004) Brief for the Appellee (NO. 04-4250) HN: 20,23 (S.Ct.)
1598 PRAIRIE BAND POTAWATOMI NATION, Plaintitf/Appellant, v. Stephen S.
RICHARDS, Secretary of the Kansas Department of Revenue, State of Kansas, in
his official capacity, Defendant/Appellee., 2003 WL 24056524, *24056524+
(Appellate Brief) (10th Cir. Nov 12, 2003) Appellant's Reply Brief (NO.
03-3218) " HN: 2 (S.Ct.)
1599 PRAIRIE BAND POTAWATOMI NATION plaintiff/appellant Clerk, v. Stephen
S. RICHARDS, Secretary, Kansas Department of Revenue, defendant/appellee.,
2003 WL 24056523, *24056523+ (Appellate Brief) (10th Cir. Oct 23, 2003)
Brief for the Appellee Secretary of Revenue, State of Kansas (NO. 03-3218) "

HN: 30 (S.Ct.)
1600 PRAIRIE BAND POTAWATOMI NATION, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. Stephen S.
RICHARDS, Secretary of the Kansas Department of Revenue, State of Kansas, in
his official capacity, Defendant/Appellee., 2003 WL 24056522, *24056522+
(Appellate Brief) (10th Cir. Sep 23, 2003) Appellant's Opening Brief (NO.
03-3218) HN: 20,22 (S.Ct.)
1601 SOUTHWEST AIR AMBULANCE, INC. and John Richardson, Plaintiffs, v.
THE CITY OF LAS CRUCES, Defendant., 2000 WL 34017797, *34017797
(Appellate Brief) (10th Cir. Oct 2000) Appellants' Brief (NO. 99-2344)
HN: 31 (S.Ct.)
1602 Felix LOBO, Liza Suarez, Plaintiff-Appellants, v. MICCOSUKEE TRIBE OF
INDIANS OF FLORIDA, a federally recognized Indian tribe, and Billy Cypress,
Defendants-Appellees., 2008 WL 310961, *310961+ (Appellate Brief) (11th Cir.
Jan 09, 2008) Brief of Appellees MicCosukee Tribe of Indians of Florida and
Billy Cypress (NO. 07-15073-JJ) " HN: 5 (S.Ct.)
1603 FRIENDS OF THE EVERGLADES, et al., Plaintiffs, Miccosukee Tribe of Indi-
ans of Florida, a federally recognized Indian tribe, Intervenor-Plaintiff, Appel-
lant, v. SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT, et al., De-
fendants, Appellee., 2005 WL 4814808, *4814808+ (Appellate Brief) (11th Cir.
Nov 16, 2005) Brief of Appellant Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of Florida
(NO. 05-15131-AA)
ans of Florida, a federally recognized Indian tribe, Intervenor-Plaintiff, Appel-
lant, v. SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT, et al., De-
fendants, Appellee., 2005 WL 5277041, *5277041+ (Appellate Brief) (11th Cir.
Nov 15, 2005) Brief of Appellant Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of Florida
(NO. 05-15131-AA)
ans of Florida, a federally recogrized Indian tribe, Intervenor-Plaintiff, Appellant,
v. SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT, et al., Defendants,
Appellees., 2005 WL 4781829, *4781829+ (Appellate Brief) (11th Cir. Oct 19,
2005) Brief of Appellant Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of Florida. (NO.
05-13847-AA)
1606 Rhonda KIZZIRE, Larry Calvin Martin, and Michael R. Dennis, Plaintiffs-Ap-
pellants, v. BAPTIST HEALTH SYSTEM, INC. and American Hospital Associ-
ation, Defendants-Appellees., 2005 WL 4815020, *4815020+ (Appellate Brief)
(11th Cir. Feb 01, 2005) Brief of Appellee Baptist Health System, Inc. (NO.
04-16017-EE)
1607 Jerry BAINBRIDGE, et al., Plaintiffs/Appellants, v. John BUSH, et al., Defend-
ants/Appellees., 2001 WL 34127800, *1+ (Appellate Brief) (11th Cir. Dec 05,
2001) Answer Brief of Appellees, Bush et al. (NO. 01-14688HH01-14734HH)
HN: 23 (S.Ct.)
1608 FLORIDA HOTEL PROPERTIES, INC., a Florida corporation, Plaintiff-Ap-

pellee, v. JICARILLA APACHE TRIBE, INC., a corporation organized under the
laws of the United States of America, First Security Bank of New Mexico, N.A.,
as Trustee, Nordhaus, Haltom, Taylor, Taradash & Frye, L.L.P., and Alan R.
Taradash, Defendants-Appellants., 1997 WL 33632267, *33632267 (Appellate
Brief) (11th Cir. Oct 29, 1997) Appellants' Reply Brief (NO. 97-2273) HN:
6,34 (S.Ct.)
1609 TAMIAMI PARTNERS, LTD. by and through its general partner, Tamiami De-
velopment Corporation, Plaintiff/Appellant/Cross Appellee, v. MICCOSUKEE
TRIBE OF INDIANS OF FLORIDA, Business Council of Miccosukee Tribe of
Indians of Florida, Miccosukee Tribal Gaming Agency, and Miccosukee Tribal
Court, Defendants/Appellees, Billy CYPRESS, Jasper Nelson, Jimmie Bert, Max
Billie, Henry Bert, Andy Buster, Minnie Bert, Defendants/Appellees/Cross Ap-
pellants., 1994 WL 16019982, *16019982+ (Appellate Brief) (11th Cir. Jun 27,
1994) Reply Brief of Appellees and Appellee-Cross Appellants (NO. 94-4403)
HN: 7 (S.Ct.)
Court, Defendants/Appellees, Billy Cypress, Jasper Nelson, Jimmie Bert, Max
1994) Reply Brief of Appellees and Appellee-Cross Appellants (NO. 94-4403)
HN: 7 (S.Ct.)
1611 TAMIAMI PARTNERS, LTD., Appellant/Cross Appellee, v. MICCOSUKEE
TRIBE OF INDIANS OF FLORIDA, et al., Appellees/Cross Appellant and Ap-
pellee., 1994 WL 16019984, *16019984+ (Appellate Brief) (11th Cir. Jun 20,
1994) Reply Brief of Appellant-Cross Appellee Tamiami Partners, Ltd. (NO.
94-4403) HN: 5,23,24 (S.Ct.)
1612 TAMIAMI PARTNERS, LTD., Appellant/Cross Appellee, v. MICCOSUKEE
TRIBE OF INDIANS OF FLORIDA, et al., Appellees/Cross Appellant and Ap-
pellee., 1994 WL 16125241, *16125241+ (Appellate Brief) (11th Cir. Jun 20,
1994) Reply Brief of Appellant-Cross Appellee Tamiami Partners, Ltd. (NO.
94-4403) HN: 5,23,24 (S.Ct.)
Court, Defendants/Appellees, Billy CYPRESS, Jasper Nelson, Jimmie Bert, Max
1994) Brief of Appellees and Appellee-Cross Appellants (NO. 94-4403)
HN: 22 (S.Ct.)

Court, Defendants/Appellees, Billy Cypress, Jasper Nelson, Jimmie Bert, Max
1994) Brief of Appellees and Appellee-Cross Appellants (NO. 94-4403)
HN: 22 (S.Ct.)
1615 TAMIAMI PARTNERS, LTD., Plaintiff, v. MICCOSUKEE TRIBE OF INDI-
ANS OF FLORIDA, Defendant., 1993 WL 13126610, *13126610+ (Appellate
Brief) (11th Cir. May 19, 1993) Appellant Welt's Reply Brief (NO. 93-4375,
93-4410) " HN: 36 (S.Ct.)
1616 TAMIAMI PARTNERS, LTD., Plaintiff/Appellee, v. MICCOSUKEE TRIBE OF
INDIANS OF FLORIDA, Defendant/Appellant., 1993 WL 13126611,
*13126611+ (Appellate Brief) (11th Cir. May 13, 1993) Brief of Appellee
Tamiami Partners, Ltd. (NO. 93-4375, 93-4410) " HN: 2,23 (S.Ct.)
1617 TAMIAMI PARTNERS, LTD., Plaintiff, v. MICCOSUKEE TRIBE OF INDI-
ANS OF FLORIDA, Defendant., 1993 WL 13126608, *13126608+ (Appellate
Brief) (11th Cir. May 06, 1993) Appellant Welt's Initial Brief (NO. 93-4375)
HN: 2,23,24 (S.Ct.)
1618 TAMIAMI PARTNERS, LTD., Plaintiff/Appellant/Appellee, v. MICCOSUKEE
TRIBE OF INDIANS OF FLORIDA, Defendant/Appellee/Appellant., 1993 WL
United States as Amicus Curiae in Support of the Miccosukee Tribe (NO.
92-4869, 93-4375, 93-4410) HN: 9,23 (S.Ct.)
1619 TAMIAMI PARTNERS, LTD., Plaintiff/Appellant/Appellee, v. MICCOSUKEE
TRIBE OF INDIANS OF FLORIDA, Defendant/Appellee/Appellant., 1993 WL
13138995, *13138995+ (Appellate Brief) (11th Cir. May 06, 1993) Brief of Ap-
pellee (92-4869)/Appellant (93-4375 & 4410) Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of
Florida (NO. 92-4869, 93-1966, 93-4375, AND93-4410) " HN: 20,22
(S.Ct.)
1620 BANK OF GUAM, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES, Defendant-Ap-
pellee., 2008 WL 5009095, *5009095+ (Appellate Brief) (Fed.Cir. Oct 21, 2008)
Brief for Defendant-Appellee, United States (NO. 2008-5078) " HN:
19,21 (S.Ct.)
1621 STOCKTON EAST WATER DISTRICT, and Central San Joaquin Water Con-
servation District, Plaintiffs-Appellants, San JOAQUIN COUNTY, STOCKTON
CITY, and CALIFORNIA WATER SERVICE COMPANY, Plaintiffs, v.
UNITED STATES, Defendant-Appellee., 2008 WL 4387203, *4387203+
(Appellate Brief) (Fed.Cir. Feb 22, 2008) Brief of Amicus Curiae Natural Re-
sources Defense Council in Support of the United States (NO. 2007-5142) "
HN: 19,21 (S.Ct.)
1622 KLAMATH IRRIGATION DISTRICT, Tulelake Irrigation District, Klamath

Drainage District, Poe Valley Improvement District, Sunnyside Irrigation Dis-
trict, Klamath Basin Improvement District, Klamath Hills District Improvement
Co., Midland District Improvement Co., Malin Irrigation District, Enterprise Ir-
rigation District, Pine Grove Irrigation District, Westside Improvement District
No. 4, Shasta View Irrigation District, Van Brimmer Ditch Co., Fred A. Robison,,
2007 WL 4702849, *4702849+ (Appellate Brief) (Fed.Cir. Dec 06, 2007) Cor-
rected Brief of Amicus Curiae Natural Resources Defense Council in Sup-
port of the United States (NO. 07-5115) " HN: 19,21 (S.Ct.)
1623 KLAMATH IRRIGATION DISTRICT, Tulelake Irrigation District, Klamath
Drainage District, Poe Valley Improvement District, Sunnyside Irrigation Dis-
trict, Klamath Basin Improvement District, Klamath Hills District Improvement
Co., Midland District Improvement Co., Malin Irrigation District, Enterprise Ir-
rigation District, Pine Grove Irrigation District, Westside Improvement District
No. 4, Shasta View Irrigation District, Van Brimmer Ditch Co., Fred A. Robison,,
2007 WL 4739076, *4739076+ (Appellate Brief) (Fed.Cir. Dec 06, 2007) Cor-
rected Brief of Amicus Curiae Natural Resources Defense Council in Sup-
port of the United States (NO. 07-5115) " HN: 19,21 (S.Ct.)
1624 CASITAS MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED
STATES, Defendant-Appellee., 2007 WL 4984848, *4984848+ (Appellate Brief)
(Fed.Cir. Feb 20, 2007) Brief of Amicus Curiae Natural Resources Defense
Council in Support of the United States (NO. 2007-5153) " HN: 19,21
(S.Ct.)
1625 LOCAL OKLAHOMA BANK, N.A., Plaintiff-Cross Appellant, v. United States,
Defendant-Appellant., 2005 WL 1868508, *1868508+ (Appellate Brief) (Fed.Cir.
Jun 24, 2005) Brief for Defendant-Appellant, the United States (NO. 04-5106,
04-5107) HN: 19,21 (S.Ct.)
1626 National Australia BANK, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. UNITED STATES, Defendant-
Appellant., 2005 WL 1868658, *1868658+ (Appellate Brief) (Fed.Cir. Jun 24,
2005) Brief for Defendant-Appellant, the United States (NO. 05-5072)
HN: 19,21 (S.Ct.)
1627 FIRST HEIGHTS BANK, F.S.B., PULTE DIVERSIFIED COMPANIES, INC.,
and Pulte Homes, Inc., Plaintiffs-Cross Appellants, v. UNITED STATES, De-
fendant-Appellant., 2004 WL 5470377, *5470377+ (Appellate Brief) (Fed.Cir.
Mar 08, 2004) Brief of Plaintiffs-Cross Appellants First Heights Bank, F.S.B,
Pulte Diversified Companies, Inc., and Pulte Homes, Inc. (NO. 04-5021,
04-5022) " HN: 19 (S.Ct.)
1628 FIRST HEIGHTS BANK, FSB, PULTE DIVERSIFIED COMPANIES INC., and
Pulte Homes, Inc., Plaintiffs-Cross/Appellants, v. THE UNITED STATES, De-
fendant-Appellant., 2004 WL 5470375, *5470375+ (Appellate Brief) (Fed.Cir.
Jan 23, 2004) Brief for Defendant-Appellant, the United States (NO. 04-5021,
04-5022) " HN: 19 (S.Ct.)
1629 FIRST NATIONWIDE BANK, First Gibraltar Holdings Inc and Macandrews &
Forbes Holdings, Inc., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. UNITED STATES, Defendant-Ap-

pellant., 2003 WL 25654324, *25654324+ (Appellate Brief) (Fed.Cir. Sep 12,
2003) Brief for Defendant-Appellant, the United States (NO. 03-5128) "
HN: 19 (S.Ct.)
1630 CENTEX CORPORATION and CTX Holding Company, Plaintiffs-Cross Appel-
lants, v. UNITED STATES, Defendant-Appellant., 2003 WL 24305555,
*24305555+ (Appellate Brief) (Fed.Cir. Jul 01, 2003) Brief for Defendant-Ap-
pellant, the United States (NO. 03-5087, 03-5095) " HN: 19,21 (S.Ct.)
1631 Spencer ABRAHAM, Secretary of Energy, Appellant, v. ROCKWELL INTER-
NATIONAL CORPORATION, Appellee., 2002 WL 32627732, *32627732
(Appellate Brief) (Fed.Cir. Sep 13, 2002) Reply Brief of Appellant Spencer Ab-
raham, Secretary of Energy (NO. 02-1277) HN: 21 (S.Ct.)
1632 OMAHA PUBLIC POWER DISTRICT, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. UNITED
STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant - Appellee., 2000 WL 34252013, *34252013
(Appellate Brief) (Fed.Cir. May 23, 2000) Corrected Reply Brief for Plaintiff-
Appellant (NO. 99-5160) HN: 18,21 (S.Ct.)
1633 KARUK TRIBE OF CALIFORNIA, Plaintiff-Appellant, CAROL McCONNELL
AMMON, Leslie Ammon, Elsie McCovey Bacon, Julia Lauretta Bartow, Ollie
Roberts Foseide, Bonita Bacon Green, Janice M. Green, Dorothy Williams
Haberman, Richard L. Haberman, Evelina Hoffman, Mary Gist Jackson, Martin
Kinder, Sr., Rachel L. Knight, Ernest Lewis, Jr., Annie Mitchell Love, Ardith
McConnell, Michael McConnell, Robert B. McConnell, Walter C. McKinnon,
Thelma W. McLaughlin, Steven J., 1999 WL 33612556, *33612556+ (Appellate
Brief) (Fed.Cir. Apr 16, 1999) Yurok Indian Tribe's Reply Brief (NO. 99-5002,
99-5003, 99-5006) HN: 8,10,24 (S.Ct.)
1634 KARUK TRIBE OF CALIFORNIA, Plaintiff-Appellant, Carol McConnell Am-
mon, Leslie Ammon, Elsie McCovey Bacon, Julia Lauretta Bartow, Ollie Roberts
Foseide, Bonita Bacon Green, Janice M. Green, Dorothy Williams Haberman,
Richard L. Haberman, Evelina Hoffman, Mary Gist Jackson, Martin Kinder, Sr.,
Rachel L. Knight, Ernest Lewis, Jr., Annie Mitchell Love, Ardith McConnell,
Michael McConnell, Robert B. McConnell, Walter D. McKinnon, Thelma W.
McLaughlin, Steven J., 1998 WL 34081577, *34081577+ (Appellate Brief)
(Fed.Cir. Dec 01, 1998) Brief for Appellants Carol Ammon and 31 Other
Named Plaintiffs, as Members of, and on Behalf of All Other Members of, an
Identifiable Group of American Indians, Consisting of California Indians
Who ... (NO. 99-5002, 99-5003, 99-5006)
1635 YANKEE ATOMIC ELECTRIC COMPANY, Plaintiff/Cross-Appellant, v. THE
UNITED STATES, Defendant/Appellant., 1996 WL 33423485, *33423485+
(Appellate Brief) (Fed.Cir. May 16, 1996) Reply Brief of Defendant/Appellant
United States. (NO. 5025, 96-5021)
1636 YANKEE ATOMIC ELECTRIC COMPANY, Plaintiff/Cross-Appellant, v. THE
UNITED STATES, Defendant-Appellant., 1996 WL 33423483, *33423483+
(Appellate Brief) (Fed.Cir. Apr 16, 1996) Brief for Plaintiff/Cross-Appellant
Yankee Atomic Electric Company (NO. -5025, 96-5021) " HN: 2,3

(S.Ct.)
1637 CENTER FOR BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES
DEPT. OF THE INTERIOR, Respondent, American Petroleum Institute, Inter-
venor. Native Village of Point Hope, Alaska Wilderness League, and Pacific En-
vironment, Petitioners, v. United States Dept. of the Interior, Respondent, Amer-
ican Petroleum Institute, Intervenor., 2008 WL 4239382, *4239382+ (Appellate
Brief) (D.C.Cir. Aug 29, 2008) Final Brief for Intervenor American Petroleum
Institute (NO. 07-1247, 07-1344) HN: 20 (S.Ct.)
1638 SPRINT NEXTEL CORPORATION, Petitioner/Appellant, v. FEDERAL COM-
MUNICATIONS COMMISSION and the United States of America, Respond-
ents/Appellee., 2008 WL 458598, *458598+ (Appellate Brief) (D.C.Cir. Feb 06,
2008) Brief For Respondents/Appellee (NO. 07-1416) " HN: 20,21,22
(S.Ct.)
1639 SAN MANUEL INDIAN BINGO AND CASINO and San Manuel Band of Ser-
rano Mission Indians, Petitioners/Cross-Respondents, v. NATIONAL LABOR
RELATIONS BOARD, Respondent/Cross-Petitioner, Unite Here, Intervenor,
State of Connecticut, Intervenor., 2006 WL 1757179, *1757179+ (Appellate
Brief) (D.C.Cir. Jun 05, 2006) Brief for the National Labor Relations Board
(NO. 05-1392, 05-1432) " HN: 10,11 (S.Ct.)
1640 SAN MANUEL INDIAN BINGO AND CASINO and San Manuel Band of Ser-
rano Mission Indians, Petitioners, v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS
BOARD, Respondent., 2006 WL 1092145, *1092145+ (Appellate Brief)
(D.C.Cir. Apr 19, 2006) Corrected Brief of Amici Indian Tribes and Tribal
Organizations in Support of Petitioners and Reversal of the NLRB's Judg-
ment (NO. 05-1392, 05-1432()) " HN: 5,8,23 (S.Ct.)
1641 SAN MANUEL INDIAN BINGO AND CASINO, San Manuel Band of Serrano
Mission Indians, Petitioners, v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, et
al., Respondents/Cross Petitioners., 2006 WL 752135, *752135+ (Appellate
Brief) (D.C.Cir. Mar 21, 2006) Petitioners' Opening Brief (NO. 05-1392,
05-1432) " HN: 8,10,11 (S.Ct.)
1642 PUERTO RICO FEDERAL AFFAIRS ADMINISTRATION, and individual de-
fendants, Mari Carmen Aponte, Mairym Ramos, Aida Sanchez, and Marcos Vil-
ar, Petitioners-Appellants, v. Emma RODRIGUEZ, individually and on behalf of
others similarly situated, Respondent-Appellee., 2005 WL 2250155, *2250155+
(Appellate Brief) (D.C.Cir. Aug 25, 2005) Reply brief (NO. 05-7029) " HN:
19,21 (S.Ct.)
1643 Emma RODRIGUEZ, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. PUERTO RICO FEDERAL AF-
FAIRS ADMINISTRATION, et al., Defendants-Appellants., 2005 WL 1976836,
*1976836+ (Appellate Brief) (D.C.Cir. Jul 28, 2005) Brief for the United States
as Intervenor (NO. 05-7029) HN: 19,21 (S.Ct.)
1644 AMFAC RESORTS, L.L.C., Appellant, v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT
OF THE INTERIOR, et al., Appellees., 2001 WL 36037854, *36037854+
(Appellate Brief) (D.C.Cir. Sep 19, 2001) Brief and Appendix for Appellees

(NO. 01-5223, 01-5226, 01-5229, 01-5233)
1645 PUEBLO OF SANDIA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Bruce BABBITT, et al., Defend-
ants-Appellants, Sandia Mountain Coalition and County of Bernalillo, New Mex-
ico, Intervenor-Defendants-Appellants., 2000 WL 35578133, *35578133+
(Appellate Brief) (D.C.Cir. Jun 28, 2000) Reply Brief of the Federal Appellants
(NO. 98-5428, 98-5451)
1646 TRANSCAPITAL FINANCIAL CORPORATION and American Capital Corpor-
ation, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF THRIFT SUPERVI-
SION and Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, Defendants-Appellees., 1994
WL 16776945, *16776945 (Appellate Brief) (D.C.Cir. Oct 03, 1994) Reply Brief
of Appellants Transcapital Financial Corporation and American Capital
Corporation (NO. 93-5260)
1647 PUERTO RICO HIGHER EDUCATION ASSISTANCE CORPORATION,
Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Laura F. CAVAZOS, Secretary of the United States De-
partment of Education, et. al., Defendants-Appellees., 1993 WL 13650955,
*13650955+ (Appellate Brief) (D.C.Cir. May 25, 1993) Brief for Appellant
(NO. 92-5120) HN: 20 (S.Ct.)
1648 Anita JOHN, Appellant, v. John BAKER, Appellee., 2004 WL 4908721,
*4908721+ (Appellate Brief) (Alaska Apr 01, 2004) Brief of Appellee State of
Alaska, Department of Revenue, Child Support Enforcement Division (NO.
S-11176) HN: 8 (S.Ct.)
1649 In the Adoption Matter of: K.M.W. Native Village of Napaimute Traditional
Council, Appellant, v. T.W. and L.W., Appellees., 2002 WL 32829725,
*32829725+ (Appellate Brief) (Alaska May 06, 2002) Appellant's Opening
Brief (NO. S-10489) HN: 20 (S.Ct.)
*35180189+ (Appellate Brief) (Alaska May 05, 1998) Brief for the United
States as Amicus Curiae (NO. S-08099) " HN: 1 (S.Ct.)
*35172673+ (Appellate Brief) (Alaska May 04, 1998) Supplemental Brief of
Appellee (NO. S-08099) " HN: 8,10,23 (S.Ct.)
*35172674+ (Appellate Brief) (Alaska May 04, 1998) Appellant's Opening
Supplemental Memorandum Brief Pursuant to Court's Order of March 4,
1998 (NO. S-08099) " HN: 1 (S.Ct.)
1653 CHISHOLM CO., INC., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. HICKMAN'S EGG RANCH,
INC., Defendant-Appellee., 2006 WL 5537083, *5537083+ (Appellate Brief)
(Ariz.App. Div. 1 Aug 09, 2006) Appellant's Reply Brief (NO.
1CA-CV05-0686, 1CA-CV06-0001) " HN: 2,24 (S.Ct.)
1654 Deborah L. RIVERA, Plaintiff/Appellant, v HOPLAND BAND OF POMO IN-
DIANS ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, Defendant/Respond-
ent., 2007 WL 671221, *671221+ (Appellate Brief) (Cal.App. 1 Dist. Jan 12,
2007) Respondent's Brief (NO. A114858) " HN: 20 (S.Ct.)

1655 Jerome R. SINGER and Lawrence E. Crooks, Plaintiffs/Appel-
lants/Cross-Respondents, v. THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALI-
FORNIA, Defendant/Respondent/Cross-Appellant., 1997 WL 33815550,
*33815550+ (Appellate Brief) (Cal.App. 1 Dist. Jul 21, 1997) Respond-
ent's/Cross-Appellant's Reply Brief (NO. A076331) HN: 19,21 (S.Ct.)
1656 Chemehuevi Indian TRIBE, Defendant and Cross-Appellant, v. METROPOLIT-
AN WATER DISTRICT OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, Plaintiff and Respond-
ent., 1999 WL 33658710, *33658710+ (Appellate Brief) (Cal.App. 2 Dist. Aug
13, 1999) Cross-Appellant Chemehuevi Indian Tribe's Opening Brief (NO.
B119968)
1657 GREAT WESTERN CASINOS, INC., Plaintiff/Appellant, v. MORONGO
BAND OF MISSION INDIANS, et al., Defendants/Respondents., 1999 WL
33738472, *33738472+ (Appellate Brief) (Cal.App. 2 Dist. Feb 18, 1999) Re-
spondents' Brief (NO. B121492)
1658 BURBANK-GLENDALE PASADENA AIRPORT AUTHORITY, Appellant, v.
CITY OF BURBANK, Respondent., 1998 WL 34113716, *34113716+
(Appellate Brief) (Cal.App. 2 Dist. Apr 03, 1998) Respondent City of Burb-
ank's Brief (NO. B116038) " HN: 31,32 (S.Ct.)
1659 CALIFORNIA STATEWIDE LAW ENFORCEMENT ASSOCIATION (CSLEA
formerly Cause), Petitioner/Respondent, v. STATE OF CALIFORNIA, Depart-
ment of Personnel Administration (DPA), Respondent/Appellant., 2010 WL
1178346, *1178346+ (Appellate Brief) (Cal.App. 3 Dist. Feb 08, 2010) Appel-
lant's Reply Brief (NO. C061102)
1660 CALIFORNIA STATEWIDE LAW ENFORCEMENT ASSOCIATION (CSLEA
formerly Cause), Petitioner/Respondent, v. STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DE-
PARTMENT OF PERSONNEL ADMINISTRATION (DPA), Respondent/Appel-
lant., 2009 WL 3071748, *3071748+ (Appellate Brief) (Cal.App. 3 Dist. Aug 13,
2009) Appellant's Opening Brief (NO. C061102)
1661 LOBO GAMING, INC., a New Mexico Corporation, Plaintiff and Appellant, v.
PIT RIVER TRIBE OF CALIFORNIA, a federally recognized Indian Tribe, and
Pit River Gaming Commission, an agency of the Pit River Tribe, Defendants and
Respondents., 2001 WL 34156451, *34156451+ (Appellate Brief) (Cal.App. 3
Dist. Jul 05, 2001) Respondents' Brief (NO. C037661) HN: 12,21 (S.Ct.)
1662 PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA and the Air Resources Board,
Plaintiffs and Respondents, v. Richard E. WILMSHURST, an individual, Forty-
Niner Sierra Resources, Inc. dba Forty-Niner Subaru-Isuzu. Defendants and Ap-
pellants., 1997 WL 33560120, *33560120+ (Appellate Brief) (Cal.App. 3 Dist.
Mar 21, 1997) Brief of Respondents People of the State of California and the
Air Resources Board (NO. C022579) HN: 31 (S.Ct.)
1663 STATE OF COLORADO ex rel. John W. Suthers, Attorney General, and Laura
E. Udis, Administrator, Uniform Consumer Credit Code, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v.
CASH ADVANCE and Preferred Cash Loans, Defendants-Appellants., 2007 WL
2958848, *2958848+ (Appellate Brief) (Colo.App. Aug 27, 2007) Opening Brief

(NO. 2007CA0582) HN: 2 (S.Ct.)
1664 UTE MOUNTAIN UTE TRIBE, Federally Recognized Indian Tribe, Appellant/
Defendant, v. RUSH CREEK SOLUTIONS, INC., a Colorado corporation, Ap-
pellee/Plaintiff., 2003 WL 25504786, *25504786+ (Appellate Brief) (Colo.App.
Sep 03, 2003) Answer Brief (NO. 03CA517) HN: 20,22 (S.Ct.)
1665 UTE MOUNTAIN UTE TRIBE, a Federally Recognized Indian Tribe, Appellant
- Defendant, v. RUSH CREEK SOLUTIONS, INC., a Colorado Corporation, Ap-
pellee - Plaintiff., 2003 WL 25504785, *25504785+ (Appellate Brief) (Colo.App.
Aug 01, 2003) Opening Brief (NO. 03CA517) HN: 20,22 (S.Ct.)
1666 WORLD TOUCH, INC., a Georgia Corporation, Appellant, v. MICCOSUKEE
TRIBE OF INDIANS OF FLORIDA, a Federallyrecognized Indian Tribe, Ap-
pellee., 2008 WL 6090884, *6090884 (Appellate Brief) (Ga.App. Jul 01, 2008)
Brief of Appellee (NO. A08A1858)
1667 STATE OF IDAHO, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Rozina GEORGE, Defendant-Ap-
pellant., 1995 WL 17199465, *17199465+ (Appellate Brief) (Idaho 1995) Appel-
lant's Reply Brief (NO. 21554)
1668 STATE OF IDAHO, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Marcus W. MATHEWS, Defend-
ant-Appellant., 1993 WL 13143041, *13143041+ (Appellate Brief) (Idaho Oct
04, 1993) Appellant's Reply Brief (NO. 20154) " HN: 22 (S.Ct.)
1669 STATE OF IDAHO, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Marcus W. MATHEWS, Defend-
ant-Appellant., 1993 WL 13143040, *13143040+ (Appellate Brief) (Idaho Sep
27, 1993) Appellant's Reply Brief (NO. 20154) " HN: 22 (S.Ct.)
1670 David ROBLES, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Shoshone-Bannock TRIBES, Defend-
ant-Appellant., 1993 WL 13143082, *13143082+ (Appellate Brief) (Idaho Mar
18, 1993) Brief of Appellant (NO. 20399)
1671 CITY OF CHICAGO, a Municipal Corporation, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. AMERIC-
AN NATIONAL BANK & TRUST, U/T/A #41521, and James M. Pastore, De-
fendants-Appellants., 1998 WL 34292070, *34292070+ (Appellate Brief)
(Ill.App. 1 Dist. Jan 20, 1998) Brief and Supplemental Appendix of Plaintiff-
Appellee City of Chicago (NO. 1-96-4146) HN: 24 (S.Ct.)
1672 L.E. SERVICES, INC., Virginia Bonyor, and Neil Bonyor, Appellants,
(Defendants below), v. STATE LOTTERY COMMISSION OF INDIANA, Ap-
pellee. (Plaintiff below)., 1994 WL 16461881, *16461881+ (Appellate Brief)
(Ind.App. Sep 06, 1994) Brief of Appellee (NO. 49A04-9406-CV-226) HN:
31 (S.Ct.)
1673 Roger ZIMMERMAN and Angela Zimmerman, Harris Zimmerman and Virginia
Zimmerman, Glen Eberle, Bill Unruh and Linda Unruh, Robert Goss and Janet
Goss, Kenneth Anderson and Colleen Anderson, and Wilson Valley, L.L.C.,
Plaintiff/Appellants, A.B. Hudson and Larry French, Plaintiff Intervenors/Appel-
lants, v. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF WABAUNSEE
COUNTY, KANSAS, Defendant/Appellee/Cross-Appellant., 2009 WL 5244582,
*5244582+ (Appellate Brief) (Kan. Dec 18, 2009) Brief of Amicus Curiae Pro-
tect the Flint Hills, Inc. (NO. 07-98487-AS) HN: 30,31,32 (S.Ct.)

1674 Roger ZIMMERMAN and Angelina Zimmerman, Harris Zimmerman and Virgin-
ia Zimmerman, Glen Eberle, Bill Unruh and Linda Unruh, Robert Gross and
Janet Gross, Kenneth Anderson and Colleen Anderson and Wilson Valley,
L.L.C., Plaintiff/Appellants, A.B. Hudson and Larry French, Plaintiff Interven-
ors/Appellants, v. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF WABAUN-
SEE COUNTY, KANSAS, Appellee/Cross Appellant., 2009 WL 5244589,
*5244589+ (Appellate Brief) (Kan. Dec 10, 2009) Supplemental Brief of Board
of County Commissioners of Wabaunsee County, Kansas, Defendant/Ap-
pellee/Cross Appellant (NO. 07-98487-AS) HN: 30,31 (S.Ct.)
1675 Stephanie WEBB, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. THE TUNICA BILOXI INDIAN
TRIBE OF LA d/b/a Paragon Casino Report, Defendant/Appellee., 2004 WL
5789049, *5789049+ (Appellate Brief) (La.App. 3 Cir. Feb 13, 2004) Original
Brief on Behalf of Defendant/Appellee, The Tunica Biloxi Indian Tribe of LA
d/b/a Paragon Casino Resort (NO. WCA-03-1700)
1676 Priscilla S. WHITTINGTON, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. THE TUNICA BILOXI IN-
DIAN TRIBE OF LA d/b/a Paragon Casino Resort, Defendant/Appellee., 2003
WL 25907451, *25907451+ (Appellate Brief) (La.App. 3 Cir. Nov 05, 2003)
Original Brief on Behalf of Defendant/Appellee, the Tunica Biloxi Indian
Tribe of LA d/b/a Paragon Casino Resort (NO. WCA-03-1286)
1677 Laura STELLY, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. THE TUNICA BILOXI INDIAN TRIBE
OF LA d/b/a Paragon Casino Resort, Defendant/Appellee., 2003 WL 25940695,
*25940695+ (Appellate Brief) (La.App. 3 Cir. Oct 22, 2003) Original Brief on
Behalf of Defendant/Appellee, the Tunica Biloxi Indian Tribe of LA d/b/a
Paragon Casino Resort (NO. WCA-03-1222)
1678 Pamela BORDELON, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. THE TUNICA BIL OXI INDIAN
TRIBE OF LA d/b/a Paragon Casino Resort, Dofendant/Appellee., 2003 WL
25940696, *25940696+ (Appellate Brief) (La.App. 3 Cir. Oct 22, 2003) Original
Brief on Behalf of Defendant/Appellee the Tunica Biloxi Indian Tribe of LA
d/b/a Paragon Casino Resort (NO. WCA-03-1223)
1679 Kathryn C. ORTEGO, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. THE TUNICA BILOXI INDIAN
TRIBE OF LA D/B/A PARAGON CASINO RESORT, Defendant/Appellee.,
2003 WL 25940669, *25940669+ (Appellate Brief) (La.App. 3 Cir. Sep 23,
2003) Original Brief on Behalf of Defendant/Appellee the Tunica Biloxi Indi-
an Tribe of LA d/b/a Paragon Casino Resort (NO. WCA-03-1001)
1680 Lydia A. BONNETTE, et al, v. TUNICA-BILOXI INDIANS d/b/a Paragon
Casino Resort, et al., 2002 WL 34500777, *34500777+ (Appellate Brief)
(La.App. 3 Cir. Sep 20, 2002) Original Brief Filed on Behalf of New Horizon
Kids Quest IV, Inc. Defendant/Appellee (NO. 0200919-CA, 0200920-CA,
0200921-CA)
1681 Lydia A. BONNETTE, et al, v. TUNICA-BILOXI INDIANS OF LOUISIANA d/
b/a Paragon Casino & Resort, et al., 2002 WL 34500776, *34500776+ (Appellate
Brief) (La.App. 3 Cir. Sep 19, 2002) Original Brief Filed on Behalf of the Tu-
nica-Biloxi Indians of Louisiana d/b/a Paragon Casino & Resort in Opposi-

tion to Plaintiff's Appeal (NO. 0200919-CA, 0200920-CA, 0200921-CA)
1682 COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS, Appellant, v. PHILIP MORRIS
INCORPORATED, et al., Appellees., 2007 WL 594690, *594690+ (Appellate
Brief) (Mass. Feb 01, 2007) Brief for the Defendants/Appellees - Original Par-
ticipating Manufacturers (NO. SJC-09889) HN: 20 (S.Ct.)
1683 COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. PHILIP
MORRIS INCORPORATED, et al., Defendants - Appellees., 2006 WL 4080049,
*4080049+ (Appellate Brief) (Mass. Nov 16, 2006) Brief for the Plaintiff-Ap-
pellant Commonwealth of Massachusetts (NO. SJC-09889) HN: 19,21
(S.Ct.)
1684 Jerry WEINER, Aquinnah Building Inspector and Zoning Officer, Plaintiff,
Aquinnah/Gay Head Community Association, Inc. and UMB Bank, Trustee of
the Thomas P. Benton Trust Plaintiff/Intervenors - Appellants, Commonwealth of
Massachusetts, Intervenor, v. WAMPANOAG AQUINNAH SHELLFISH
HATCHERY CORP. and Wampanoag Tribal Council of Gay Head (Aquinnah),
Defendant - Appellee., 2004 WL 3250665, *3250665+ (Appellate Brief) (Mass.
Jan 29, 2004) Brief for Appellee Wampanoag Aquinnah Shellfish Hatchery,
Wampanoag Tribal Council of Gay Head (Aquinnah) (NO. SJC-09211) "
HN: 12,18,21 (S.Ct.)
1685 Christian BRIGGS, M.D. on his own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
and Bruce M. Bullen, as he is Commissioner of the Division of Medical Assist-
ance of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Defendants-Appellees., 1998 WL
35018423, *35018423+ (Appellate Brief) (Mass. Sep 08, 1998) Brief of the De-
fendants-Appellees Commonwealth and Commissioner Bullen (NO. SJC-
07850) HN: 18,21 (S.Ct.)
1686 COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS, Appellee, v. Frank M. ROBIN-
SON, Defendant-Appellant., 2010 WL 1041005, *1041005 (Appellate Brief)
(Mass.App.Ct. Mar 05, 2010) Brief and Appendix for the Commonwealth on
Appeal from a Judgment of the Superior Court (NO. 2009-P-1607)
1687 COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. PHILIP
MORRIS INCORPORATED, et al., Defendants-Appellees., 2006 WL 3521863,
*3521863+ (Appellate Brief) (Mass.App.Ct. Nov 16, 2006) Brief for the
Plaintiff-Appellant Commonwealth of Massachusetts (NO. 06-P-1352)
HN: 19,21 (S.Ct.)
1688 Pamela FRANCIS, Appellee, v. Colleen DANA-CUMMINGS, Appellee, Tonia
SMITH, et al., Appellees. Pamela FRANCIS, Appellee, v. PLEASANT POINT
PASSAMAQUODDY HOUSING AUTHORITY, Appellee., 2006 WL 4794331,
*4794331+ (Appellate Brief) (Me. Dec 15, 2006) Joint Supplemental Brief of
Appellant, The Passamaquoddy Tribe, and The Defendants (NO. WAS-
06-184) HN: 23 (S.Ct.)
1689 GREAT NORTHERN PAPER, INC., et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. Penobscot
NATION, et al., Defendants-Appellants., 2001 WL 34857044, *34857044+

(Appellate Brief) (Me. Jan 25, 2001) Reply Brief of Appellants (NO. CUM-
00-573) HN: 10,23 (S.Ct.)
1690 Patrick PATTERSON and Susan Patterson, husband and wife, Plaintiffs / appel-
lants, v. Gregory Bryan ABALA, Robert Trevino, and Saginaw Chippewa Indian
Tribe of Michigan, d/b/a The Soaring Eagle Casino, jointly and severally, De-
fendants / appellees, SAGINAW CHIPPEWA INDIAN TRIBE OF MICHIGAN
d/b/a The Soaring Eagle Casino, Cross-Plaintiff, v. Robert TREVINO, Cross-
Defendant., 2005 WL 6208954, *6208954+ (Appellate Brief) (Mich.App. Mar
15, 2005) Defendant, Saginaw Chippewa Indian Tribe of Michigan's Brief in
Opposition to Plaintiff's Delayed Application for Leave to Appeal (NO.
260728)
1691 STATE OF MINNESOTA, Respondent, v. Joel Anthony ROY, Appellant., 2008
WL 5776371, *5776371+ (Appellate Brief) (Minn.App. Apr 11, 2008) Appel-
lant's Brief and Appendix (NO. 08-0116)
1692 Larry OGDEN, Appellant, v. IOWA TRIBE OF KANSAS AND NEBRASKA,
Respondent., 2007 WL 3278330, *3278330 (Appellate Brief) (Mo.App. W.D.
2007) Appellant's Reply Brief (NO. WD67912) HN: 24 (S.Ct.)
1693 MCCRACKEN AND AMICK, INCORPORATED d/b/a the new, Vemco Music
Co. and Ralph Amick, Plaintiffs, v. Beverly Eaves PERDUE, in her official capa-
city as Governor of North Carolina, Defendant., 2009 WL 1465411, *1465411+
(Appellate Brief) (N.C.App. May 14, 2009) Brief of Defendant-Appellant (NO.
COA09-431)
1694 STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA, EX REL. ROY COOPER, Attorney General
of North Carolina, Plaintiff-Appellant, v SENECA-CAYUGA TOBACCO COM-
PANY, An Unincorporated Arm of the Seneca-cayuga Tribe of Oklahoma, an
SENECA-CAYUGA TRIBAL TOBACCO CORPORATION, a Successor in In-
terest to Seneca-cayuga Tobacco Company, Defendants-Appellees., 2008 WL
5499954, *5499954+ (Appellate Brief) (N.C.App. Dec 29, 2008) Defendant-Ap-
pellees' Brief (NO. COA08-812)
1695 STOREVISIONS, INC., Plaintiff/Appellee, v. OMAHA TRIBE OF NEBRASKA
A/K/A Omaha Nation, Defendant/Appellant., 2010 WL 4109304, *4109304+
(Appellate Brief) (Neb.App. Sep 24, 2010) Brief of Appellee Storevisions, Inc.
(NO. A-10-280)
1696 In the Matter of the Determination of the Relative Rights of the Claimants and
Appropriators of the Waters of the Humboldt River Stream and Tributaries. South
Fork Band of the Te-Moak Tribe of the Western Shoshone Indians of Nevada;
and Marvin McDade, in His Capacity as Chairman of the South Fork Band Coun-
cil, Appellants, v. State Water Engineer of the State of Nevada and Water Com-
missioners of the Sixth Judicial District Court, Respondents., 2002 WL
34268053, *34268053+ (Appellate Brief) (Nev. Jan 16, 2002) Appellant's Reply
Brief (NO. 37094) HN: 10 (S.Ct.)
1697 AMERICAN TRUCKING ASSOCIATIONS, INC., A Non-Profit Corporation,
Incorporated Under the Laws of the District of Columbia; Suttles Truck Leasing

Inc., An Alabama Corporation, On behalf of themselves and others similarly situ-
ated, Plaintiffs, v. State of New Jersey, Defendant., 1999 WL 34782663,
*34782663+ (Appellate Brief) (N.J. Aug 27, 1999) State of New Jersey's Brief
and Appendix in Partial Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Appeal
(NO. 48260) " HN: 30,31 (S.Ct.)
1698 Jane DOE, by and through her parent and next friend, J.H., Plaintiff-Respondent,
v. Santa Clara PUEBLO, Santa Clara Development Corporation, d/b/a Big Rock
Casino, Defendants-Petitioners, Steven Bird, Miguel Ortigoza, Timothy Ortigoza
and Emily Ortigoza, Defendants; Ivan Lopez and Lucy Lopez, Plaintiffs-Re-
spondents, v. San Felipe Pueblo d/b/a/ San Felipe Casino Hollywood and Cis In-
surance Group, Defendants-Petitioners., 2006 WL 4663285, *4663285+
(Appellate Brief) (N.M. Jan 31, 2006) On Writs of Certiorari to the New Mex-
ico Court of Appeals Plaintiff-Respondent's Answer-Brief (NO. 29350,
29351)
1699 In the Matter of the Application of Thomas J. SPOTA, As District Attorney of
Suffolk County, On Behalf of the Unkechaug Indian Nation, Petitioner-Appel-
lant, v. Tina JACKSON, Respondent., 2007 WL 4938046, *4938046+ (Appellate
Brief) (N.Y. Aug 03, 2007) Brief of Appellant (NO. 2008-0001) " HN:
8,10,11 (S.Ct.)
1700 In the Matter of the Application of Thomas J. SPOTA, as District Attorney of
Suffolk County, on Behalf of the Unkechaug Indian Nation, Petitioner-Appellant,
v. Tina JACKSON, Respondent., 2006 WL 4539884, *4539884+ (Appellate
Brief) (N.Y.A.D. 2 Dept. Mar 21, 2006) Brief of Appellant (NO. 2005-11817) "
HN: 8,10,11 (S.Ct.)
1701 Peter C. KERN, et al., Canterbury Care Centers Management Co., Appellant, v.
Roger W. TRACY, Tax Commissioner of Ohio, Appellee., 1994 WL 16177691,
*16177691+ (Appellate Brief) (Ohio Jun 24, 1994) Brief of Appellants (NO.
94-788) HN: 30,31 (S.Ct.)
1702 HEALTH ENTERPRISES OF AMERICA, INC., Appellant, v. Roger W.
TRACY, Tax Commissioner of Ohio, Appellee., 1994 WL 16177696,
*16177696+ (Appellate Brief) (Ohio Jun 24, 1994) Brief of Appellants (NO.
94-789) HN: 30,31 (S.Ct.)
1703 Estate of Lewis ELKIN, Deceased Sur Testamentary Trust. Appeal of Wachovia
Bank, N.A., Trustee., 2008 WL 7143859, *7143859+ (Appellate Brief)
(Pa.Super. Dec 11, 2008) Brief for Appellant (NO. 2177EDA2008)
1704 In re Estate of Anna E. FRIDENBERG, Testamentary Trust. Appeal of Wachovia
Bank, N.A., Trustee., 2008 WL 7070561, *7070561+ (Appellate Brief)
(Pa.Super. Dec 05, 2008) Brief for Appellant (NO. 2119EDA2008)
1705 CHAMPLIN'S REALTY ASSOCIATES, LP and Viking Quest, Inc., Marc TILL-
SON, et als., 2002 WL 32867968, *32867968+ (Appellate Brief) (R.I. Nov 01,
2002) Brief of Amicus Curiae Attorney General of Rhode Island (NO.
01-491) " HN: 19,20,21 (S.Ct.)
1706 Loren POURIER, d/b/a Muddy Creek Oil and Gas, Inc. and Muddy Creek Oil

and Gas, Inc., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. SOUTH DAKOTA DEPARTMENT OF
REVENUE, Defendant-Appellee., 2002 WL 34221499, *34221499+ (Appellate
Brief) (S.D. Mar 21, 2002) Appellants' Brief (NO. 22221)
1707 FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF PHILIP, South Dakota, Plaintiff and Appellee, v.
DOUG TEMPLE, Defendant and Appellant, Merle Temple, Defendant and Ap-
pellee., 2001 WL 36004381, *36004381+ (Appellate Brief) (S.D. Jul 26, 2001)
Appellant's Reply Brief (NO. 21811)
PRODUCTION CO., Amerada Hess Trading Company, Chevron USA, Inc.,
Chevrontexaco Products Company, Chevrontexaco Global Supply and Trading
Company, TEPPCO Crude Oil LLC and TEPPCO Crude P/L LLC, Respondents.,
2009 WL 4735652, *4735652+ (Appellate Brief) (Tex. Nov 16, 2009) Respond-
ents' Brief on the Merits (NO. 09-0273)
PRODUCTION COMPANY, Amerada Hess Trading Company, Chevron Usa,
Inc., Chevron Texaco Products Company, Chevrontexaco Global Supply and
Trading Company, Teppco Crude Oil, LLC, and Teppco Crude P/L LLC, Re-
spondents., 2009 WL 3253593, *3253593+ (Appellate Brief) (Tex. Sep 25, 2009)
Petitioner's Brief on the Merits (NO. 09-0273) HN: 29 (S.Ct.)
1710 HARRISON CENTRAL APPRAISAL DISTRICT, Petitioner, v. THE PEOPLES
GAS, Light and Coke Company, Respondent., 2009 WL 2235894, *2235894+
(Appellate Brief) (Tex. Jul 06, 2009) Petitioner's Brief on the Merits (NO.
09-0053) HN: 29 (S.Ct.)
1711 POCAHONTAS MINING LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, Appellant, v.
CNX GAS COMPANY LLC, Appellee., 2008 WL 5794364, *5794364+
(Appellate Brief) (Va. Jan 02, 2008) Brief of Appellee (NO. 071608) " HN:
24 (S.Ct.)
1712 Elaine WILLMAN and Citizens Standup! Committee, Petitioners, v. WASHING-
TON UTILITIES AND TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION, Cascade Natural
Gas Corporation, and Pacificorp, d/b/a Pacific Power and Light Company, Re-
spondents., 2005 WL 1841341, *1841341+ (Appellate Brief) (Wash. Jun 09,
2005) Answer of Respondent Pacificorp to Public Counsel's Amicus Curiae
Brief (NO. 75821-2)
1713 Elaine WILLMAN and Citizens Standup! Committee, Petitioners, v. WASHING-
spondents., 2005 WL 1841342, *1841342+ (Appellate Brief) (Wash. Jun 09,
2005) Answer of the Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission to
Brief of Amicus Curiae Public Counsel (NO. 75821-2)
1714 Elaine WILLMAN and the Citizens Standup! Committee, Petitioners, v. WASH-
INGTON UTILITIES AND TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION; Cascade Nat-
ural Gas Corporation; and Pacificorp, d/b/a Pacific Power and Light Company,
Respondents., 2005 WL 1841343, *1841343+ (Appellate Brief) (Wash. Jun 09,

2005) Respondent and Cross-Appellant Cascade Natural Gas Corporation's
Response to Public Counsel's Amicus Curiae Brief (NO. 75821-2)
1715 Elaine WILLMAN, and Citizens Standup' Committee, Petitioners, v. WASHING-
spondents., 2005 WL 1583058, *1583058+ (Appellate Brief) (Wash. May 02,
2005) Supplemental Brief of Respondent Washington Utilities and Trans-
portation Commission (NO. 75821-2)
1716 Elaine WILLMAN and Citizens Standup Committee, Petitioners, v. WASHING-
TON UTILITIES and Transportation Commission, Cascade Natural Gas Corpora-
tion, and Pacificorp, d/b/a Pacific Power and Light Company, Respondents., 2005
WL 1583059, *1583059+ (Appellate Brief) (Wash. May 02, 2005) Supplemental
Brief of Respondent Pacificorp (NO. 75821-2)
1717 Elaine WILLMAN and Citizens Standup Committee, Petitioners, v. WASHING-
Gas Corporation, and Pacificorp. d/b/a Pacific Power and Light Company, Re-
spondents., 2005 WL 1583057, *1583057+ (Appellate Brief) (Wash. Apr 28,
2005) Supplemental Brief of Petititioners Elaine Willman and Citizens Stan-
dup' Committee (NO. 75821-2)
1718 Elaine WILLMAN, and Citizens Standup! Committee, Petitioners, v. WASH-
INGTON UTILITIES AND TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION, Cascade Nat-
ural Gas Corporation, and Pacificorp. d/b/a Pacific Power and Light Company,
Respondents., 2005 WL 1583060, *1583060+ (Appellate Brief) (Wash. Apr 28,
2005) Supplemental Brief of Petititioners Elaine Willman and Citizens Stan-
dup! Committee (NO. 75821-2)
1719 Elaine WILLMAN and Citizens Standup! Committee, Appellants, v. WASHING-
TON UTILITIES and Transportation Commission, cascade Natural Gas Corpora-
WL 3354891, *3354891+ (Appellate Brief) (Wash. Jan 14, 2004) Reply Brief of
Appellants/Cross Respondents Elaine Willman and Citizens Standup! Com-
mittee (NO. 75821-2) HN: 8 (S.Ct.)
1720 Elaine WILLMAN and Citizens Standupi Committee, Appellants, v. WASHING-
TON UTILITIES and Transportation Commission; Cascade Natural Gas Corpor-
ation; and Pacificorp, dba Pacific Power and Light Company, Respondents., 2003
WL 24070823, *24070823+ (Appellate Brief) (Wash. Dec 22, 2003) Brief of Re-
spondent/Cross Appellant (NO. 75821-2)
1721 Elaine WILLMAN and the Citizens Standupi Committee, Appellants, v. WASH-
INGTON UTILITIES and Transportation Commission; Cascade Natural Gas
Corporation; and Pacificorp, d/b/a Pacific Power and Light Company, Respond-
ents., 2003 WL 24070822, *24070822+ (Appellate Brief) (Wash. Dec 19, 2003)
Brief of Respondent Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission
(NO. 75821-2)
1722 Elaine WILLMAN and the Citizens Standup! Committee, Appellants, v. WASH-

Corporation; and Pacificorp, d/b/a pacific Power and Light Company, Respond-
ents., 2003 WL 24070824, *24070824+ (Appellate Brief) (Wash. Dec 18, 2003)
Brief of Respondent/Cross-Appellant Cascade Natural Gas Corporation
(NO. 75821-2) HN: 23 (S.Ct.)
WL 24070825, *24070825+ (Appellate Brief) (Wash. Nov 17, 2003) Brief of
Appellants Elaine Willman and Citizens Statndup Committee (NO. 75821-2)
HN: 8,23,24 (S.Ct.)
1724 Lee H. ROUSSO, Appellant, v. STATE OF WASHINGTON, Respondent., 2000
WL 35790086, *35790086+ (Appellate Brief) (Wash. Dec 04, 2000) Brief of Re-
spondent (NO. 83040-1) HN: 31 (S.Ct.)
1725 FRANKS & SON, INC., et al., Appellants, v. State of Washington, et al., Re-
spondents and Cross-Appellants., 1997 WL 33824790, *33824790+ (Appellate
Brief) (Wash. Oct 27, 1997) Reply Brief of State Respondents and Cross-
Appellants (NO. 65255-4) HN: 31 (S.Ct.)
TON UTILITIES and Transportation Commission, cascade Natural Gas Corpora-
WL 5550218, *5550218+ (Appellate Brief) (Wash.App. Jan 14, 2004) Reply
Brief of Appellants/Cross Respondents Elaine Willman and Citizens Stan-
dup! Committee (NO. 224112-2-III) HN: 8 (S.Ct.)
1727 Elaine WILLMAN and Citizens Standupi Committee, Appellants, v. WASHING-
TON UTILITIES and Transportation Commission; Cascade Natural Gas Corpor-
ation; and Pacificorp, dba Pacific Power and Light Company, Respondents., 2003
WL 25719343, *25719343+ (Appellate Brief) (Wash.App. Dec 22, 2003) Brief
of Respondent/Cross Appellant (NO. 224112-2-III) HN: 8,17 (S.Ct.)
1728 Elaine WILLMAN and the Citizens Standupi Committee, Appellants, v. WASH-
Corporation; and Pacificorp, d/b/a Pacific Power and Light Company, Respond-
ents., 2003 WL 25719342, *25719342+ (Appellate Brief) (Wash.App. Dec 19,
2003) Brief of Respondent Washington Utilities and Transportation Com-
mission (NO. 224112-2-III) HN: 7 (S.Ct.)
1729 Elaine WILLMAN and the Citizens Standup! Committee, Appellants, v. WASH-
Corporation; and Pacificorp, d/b/a pacific Power and Light Company, Respond-
ents., 2003 WL 25719344, *25719344+ (Appellate Brief) (Wash.App. Dec 18,
2003) Brief of Respondent/Cross-Appellant Cascade Natural Gas Corpora-
tion (NO. 224112-2-III) HN: 9,17,23 (S.Ct.)

WL 25719345, *25719345+ (Appellate Brief) (Wash.App. Nov 17, 2003) Brief
of Appellants Elaine Willman and Citizens Statndup Committee (NO.
224112-2-III) HN: 8,23,24 (S.Ct.)
1731 NORTHWEST AIRLINES, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant-Cross-Respondent, v. WIS-
CONSIN DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, Defendant-Respond-
ent-Cross-Appellant, MIDWEST AIRLINES, INC., Intervening Defendant-Re-
spondent-Cross-Appellant., 2005 WL 6075627, *6075627+ (Appellate Brief)
(Wis. Jul 07, 2005) Reply Brief of Midwest Airlines, Inc. (NO. 2004AP319) "
HN: 30,31,32 (S.Ct.)
(Wis. May 17, 2005) Brief and Appendix of Cross-Appellant (NO.
2004AP319) " HN: 31 (S.Ct.)
1733 Jerry TEAGUE, Plaintiff-Respondent-Petitioner, v. BAD RIVER BAND OF
LAKE SUPERIOR TRIBE OF CHIPPEWA INDIANS, Defendant-Appellant.
Jerry TEAGUE, Plaintiff-Respondent-Petitioner, v. BAD RIVER BAND OF
LAKE SUPERIOR TRIBE OF CHIPPEWA INDIANS, Defendant-Appellant,
FIRST FINANCIAL BANK, Garnishee., 1999 WL 33733947, *33733947+
(Appellate Brief) (Wis. Nov 15, 1999) Response Brief (NO. 98-3150, 98-3484) "
HN: 21,23 (S.Ct.)
1734 VILLAGE OF HOBART, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. BROWN COUNTY, Defendant-
Respondent., 2010 WL 1986338, *1986338+ (Appellate Brief) (Wis.App. III
Dist. May 03, 2010) Brief of Plaintiff-Appellant Village of Hobart (NO.
2010AP561)
(Wis.App. IV Dist. Jul 06, 2004) Combined Brief and Appendix of Respond-
ent and Cross-Appellant (NO. 2004AP319) " HN: 31 (S.Ct.)
1736 Inyo County, CA v. Paiute-Shoshone Indians of Bishop Community of the Bish-
op Colony, 2003 WL 252549, *252549+ (Appellate Brief) (U.S. Jan 23, 2003)
Brief for the United States as Amicus Curiae Supporting Petitioners in Part
and Respondents in Part (NO. 02-281) HN: 5 (S.Ct.)
2001) BRIEF AMICI CURIAE OF CONFEDERATED TRIBES OF THE
COLVILLE RESERVATION, HO-CHUNK NATION, LAC DU FLAM-
BEAU BAND OF LAKE SUPERIOR CHIPPEWA, PUEBLO OF ISLETA,
AND ST. CROIX CHIPPEWA INDIANS OF WISCONSIN ... (NO. 99-1994)
" HN: 5,8,10 (S.Ct.)

1738 C&L Enterprises, Inc. v. Citizen Potawatomi Nation, 2001 WL 59047, *59047+
(Appellate Brief) (U.S. Jan 16, 2001) BRIEF FOR THE UNITED STATES AS
AMICUS CURIAE SUPPORTING RESPONDENT (NO. 00-292) HN: 23
(S.Ct.)
2001) BRIEF FOR THE UNITED STATES AS AMICUS CURIAE SUP-
PORTING AFFIRMANCE (NO. 99-1994) " HN: 8,10,23 (S.Ct.)
(U.S. Jan 14, 1999) BRIEF AMICUS CURIAE OF THE FALLON PAIUTE-
SHOSHONE TRIBE IN SUPPORT OF RESPONDENTS (NO. 98-6) "
HN: 5,8,21 (S.Ct.)
(U.S. Dec 08, 1998) BRIEF FOR THE UNITED STATES AS AMICUS
CURIAE SUPPORTING REVERSAL (NO. 98-6) " HN: 3,10 (S.Ct.)
29, 1996) BRIEF AMICUS CURIAE OF WESTERN FEDERAL SAVINGS
AND LOAN ASSOCIATION AND WESTFED HOLDINGS, INC. IN SUP-
PORT OF RESPONDENTS (NO. 95-865) HN: 21 (S.Ct.)
28, 1996) BRIEF OF AMICI CURIAE WATTS HEALTH FOUNDATION,
INC. AND BEYOND SHELTER, INC. IN SUPPORT OF RESPONDENTS
(NO. 95-865) HN: 19,21 (S.Ct.)
1744 State of Minnesota v. Mille Lacs Band of Chippewa Indians, 1998 WL 665020,
*665020+ (Appellate Brief) (U.S. Sep 25, 1998) BRIEF FOR RESPONDENTS
FOND DU LAC BAND OF LAKE SUPERIOR CHIPPEWA INDIANS AND
RED CLIFF BAND OF LAKE SUPERIOR CHIPPEWA (NO. 97-1337)
1745 Buchanan v. Angelone, 1997 WL 476496, *476496 (Appellate Brief) (U.S. Aug
15, 1997) BRIEF OF RESPONDENT (NO. 96-8400)
29, 1996) BRIEF FOR RESPONDENTS WINSTAR CORPORATION AND
THE STATESMAN GROUP, INC., ET AL. (NO. 95-865) " HN:
17,24,36 (S.Ct.)
29, 1996) BRIEF FOR RESPONDENT GLENDALE FEDERAL BANK, FSB
(NO. 95-865) " HN: 17,24,25 (S.Ct.)
Joint Appendices
1748 EL PASO NATURAL GAS COMPANY, Cyprus Foote Mineral Company, and
Cyprus Amax Minerals Company, Petitioners, v. Laura NEZTSOSIE; Arlinda
Neztsosie; and Zonnie Marie Dandy Richards, Individually and as Representative
of the Estate of Harold J. Richards, Sr., Respondents., 1998 WL 34082186,
*34082186 (Joint Appendix) (U.S. Dec 08, 1998) (NO. 98-6) " HN: 20

(S.Ct.)
1749 The Honorable William STRATE, Associate Tribal Judge of the Tribal Court of
the Three Affiliated Tribes of the Fort Berthold Indian Reservation; The Tribal
Court of the Three Affiliated Tribes of the Fort Berthold Indian Reservation;
Lyndon Benedict Fredericks; Kenneth Lee Fredericks; Paul Jonas Fredericks;
Hans Christian Fredericks; Jeb Pius Fredericks; Gisela Fredericks, Petitioners, v.
A-1 CONTRACTORS; Lyle Stockert, Respondents., 1996 WL 33414152,
*33414152+ (Joint Appendix) (U.S. Nov 12, 1996) (NO. 95-1872) " HN:
1,5,23 (S.Ct.)
1750 STATE OF SOUTH DAKOTA IN ITS OWN BEHALF, AND AS PARENS
PATRIAE, Petitioner, v. GREGG BOURLAND, PERSONALLY AND AS
CHAIRMAN OF THE CHEYENNE RIVER SIOUX TRIBE AND DENNIS
ROUSSEAU, PERSONALLY AND AS DIRECTOR OF CHEYENNE RIVER
SIOUX TRIBE GAME, FISH AND PARKS, Respondents., 1992 WL 12012182,
*12012182+ (Joint Appendix) (U.S. Nov 19, 1992) (NO. 91-2051) HN: 8
(S.Ct.)
Trial Court Documents (U.S.A.)
Trial Pleadings
1751 Donald TURNER, Plaintiff, v. John O'BRIEN, individually Kerr Brosseau Bart-
lett O'Brien LLC Peoples Credit Union Garth Nieschburg, individually Tom Mor-
row, individually Dennis P Friedrich individually M Jon Kolomitz individually
Deann Billings individually Brandon Grogan individually Bob Wallace individu-
ally Herb Brown individually Dennis Jordan individually Linda Lusk individually
Steve Salzbreenner individually Dan McVey individually 1 to, 2008 WL
2276605, *2276605 (Trial Pleading) (D.Colo. Apr 15, 2008) Complaint (NO.
108CV00529) HN: 22 (S.Ct.)
1752 MICCOSUKEE TRIBE OF INDIANS OF FLORIDA, a federally-recognized In-
dian Tribe, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent., 2010
WL 4896697, *4896697+ (Trial Pleading) (S.D.Fla. Sep 29, 2010) Petition to
Quash Summons to Citibank (South Dakota), N.A. for Records of the Mic-
cosukee Tribe of Indians of Florida (NO. 110CV23508) " HN: 8 (S.Ct.)
Quash Summons to American Express Company for Records of the Miccosu-
kee Tribe of Indians of Florida (NO. 110CV23509) " HN: 8 (S.Ct.)
Quash Summons to Wachovia Bank for Records of the Miccosukee Tribe of
Indians of Florida (NO. 110CV23511) " HN: 8 (S.Ct.)

1755 Norma- Gayle SHAW, v. LEHMAN BROS BANK, FSB, et al., 2009 WL
1095550, *1095550+ (Trial Pleading) (D.Idaho Jan 30, 2009) Original Petition,
Complaint, and Claim Rico (NO. 09CV00040) " HN: 21 (S.Ct.)
1756 In Equity: THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
within the purview of the Declaration of Independence (AD 1776) and as restric-
ted by Articles I thru X of Amendment First thereto in relation to Nathan David
of the House (family) of Young, a Christian Man and solvent sovereign upon the
soil of the Land of the State of Idaho, in dei gratia regnum in capita capacity, sui
juris, Aggrieved Libelant, v. IDAHO STATE BAR, Renae J. Hoff, William A.
Morrow,, 2007 WL 4444707, *4444707 (Trial Pleading) (D.Idaho Aug 10, 2007)
Compulsory Counterclaim and Injunction (NO. 106-CV-00437)
1757 NATHAN DAVID OF THE HOUSE OF YOUNG, a live Christian Man, Inter-
vening sui juris, Aggrieved Libelant, v. Kevin E. DINIUS, William A. Morrow;
and James M. Vavrek, Petitioners/Libelees, v. Nathan David Young (sic), Lien
Claimant., 2006 WL 5124753, *5124753 (Trial Pleading) (D.Idaho Nov 14,
2006) Libel in Review Admiralty Jurisdiction (Savings to Suitors) (NO.
06CV00460)
1758 John Gregory KELSEY, Plaintiff, v. THE LITTLE RIVER BAND OF OTTAWA
INDIANS, a federally recognized Indian tribe with its principal governmental of-
fice in Manistee County, Michigan, and Angela Sherigan, Associate Judge of the
Little River Band of Ottawa Indians Tribal Court, Defendants., 2009 WL
3833170, *3833170 (Trial Pleading) (W.D.Mich. May 18, 2009) Verified Com-
plaint for Declaratory Judgment and Injunctive Relief (NO. 109-CV-456)
HN: 8 (S.Ct.)
1759 FOND DU LAC BAND OF LAKE SUPERIOR CHIPPEWA, Plaintiff, v. Ward
EINESS, in his official capacity as the Commissioner of the Minnesota Depart-
ment of Revenue, Defendant., 2009 WL 5185682, *5185682 (Trial Pleading)
(D.Minn. Jul 31, 2009) Amended Complaint (NO. 009CV00385) HN: 10
(S.Ct.)
EINESS, in his Official Capacity as the Comissioner of the Minnesota Depart-
ment of Revenue, Defendant., 2009 WL 1349034, *1349034 (Trial Pleading)
(D.Minn. Feb 18, 2009) Complaint (NO. 009CV00385) HN: 10 (S.Ct.)
1761 Kenneth and Sandra D. HAYNES As private attorney generals, and Kenneth
&Sandra D Haynes's similarly situated, v. BANK OF AMERICA CORPORA-
TION N.A., an enterprise affecting interstate commerce, Wells Fargo Home
Mortgage an enterprise affecting interstate commerce, Chase Home Finance LLC,
an enterprise affecting interstate commerce, GMAC Mortgage, LLC an enterprise
affecting interstate commerce, Aurora Loan Services, an enterprise affecting in-
terstate commerce,, 2010 WL 4089004, *4089004+ (Trial Pleading) (E.D.Mo.
Sep 14, 2010) Complaint (NO. 410CV01708) " HN: 21 (S.Ct.)
1762 Leo HENRY, Jr.: Albertson, a living Christian Man and exclusive political Cit-
izen of Oregon, United States of America, with Foreign State Immunity to United

States and Oregon Courts; Libellant, Removing Suitor and Third Party Plaintiff,
v. UNITED STATES, it's federal corporations, zones and states the State of Ore-
gon, State of Oregon, Oregon, or, County of Lake, Lake County, its commercial
entity Leo Henry Albertson Jr. US Trust, and it citizens Daina Vitolins and, 2007
WL 4780818, *4780818+ (Trial Pleading) (D.Or. Apr 02, 2007) Notice and
Praecipe (NO. CV07-0529-PA) HN: 21,22 (S.Ct.)
1763 Leo HENRY, Jr.: Albertson, a living Christian Man, removing intervener and Li-
belant, State of Oregon, a sub-chartered Municipal Corporation and artificial per-
son, EIN# 931070707, Libelee and (putative) Plaintiff, v. Leo Henry (Hank) AL-
BERTSON, Jr. (putative) Defendant., 2007 WL 4766324, *4766324 (Trial Plead-
ing) (D.Or. Mar 15, 2007) (NO. 07-3014-PA)
1764 In Law: James RUSSELL: Iler, a live/living Man of substance, in esse, and Ag-
grieved Libelant, v. Lise YERVASI, privateer and agent provocateur (under Bar
mixed war Letter of Marque No. 933523) and employee of sub-chartered muni-
cipal corporation styled as ""County of Baker,"" and 99 John and Jane does, co-
actors in concert, to be joined upon dis-covery and/or trespass hereupon, Re-
spondent Libelees., 2007 WL 4764645, *4764645 (Trial Pleading) (D.Or. 2007)
Counterclaim and Injunction Saving to Suitors in Admiralty (NO.
CV07-1036SU)
1765 Walter: BROWN, Sui Juris, Petitioner, v. TOWN COUNCIL OF OCEAN VIEW,
Defendant., 2010 WL 2717827, *2717827 (Trial Pleading) (Del.Ch. Jul 07, 2010)
Notice of Counterclaim and Motion for Trial by Jury (NO. 4969-VCL)
HN: 22 (S.Ct.)
Trial Motions, Memoranda and Affidavits

1766 Michael MCCRARY, Plaintiff, v. Ivanof Bay VILLAGE, George Skibine, Acting
Assistant Secretary of the Interior for Indian Affairs, Kenneth L. Salazar, Secret-
ary of the Interior, and U.S. Department of the Interior, Defendants., 2009 WL
2627443, *2627443 (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) (D.Alaska May
19, 2009) Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of the United
States' Motion to Dismiss or in the Alternative for Summary Judgment and
in Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment (NO.
308CV00259) "
1767 LAW OFFICES OF VINCENT VITALE, P.C., Petitioner, v. Dirk
KEMPTHORNE, et al., Respondents., 2008 WL 760579, *760579 (Trial Motion,
Memorandum and Affidavit) (D.Alaska Jan 14, 2008) Statement of Points and
Authorities in Support of the United States' Cross-Motion for Summary
Judgment (NO. 307-CV-00094-RRB)
1768 EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, Plaintiff, v.
NAVAJO HEALTH FOUNDATION-SAGE MEMORIAL HOSPITAL, INC.,
Defendant., 2007 WL 4452237, *4452237 (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affi-
davit) (D.Ariz. Aug 23, 2007) Reply in Support of Motion to Dismiss (NO.
CV06-02125-PCT-DGC)

1769 NAVAJO HOUSING AUTHORITY, Plaintiff, v. CROWNPOINT DISTRICT
COURT; the Honorable Rudy Bedonie, the Judicial Branch of the Navajo Nation
Department of Law Enforcement; and Ernest Tso, Defendants., 2006 WL
5115857, *5115857 (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) (D.Ariz. Jun 30,
2006) The Navajo Nation Defendants' Memorandum in Support of Its Reply
to Plaintiff NHA's Responsive Memorandum to Navajo Nation's Motion to
Dismiss; NHA's Reply in Support of Its Motion for Temporary ... (NO.
CIV06-1206-PCT-PGR)
1770 Valinda Jo ELLIOTT, Plaintiff, v. WHITE MOUNTAIN APACHE TRIBAL
COURT, Honorable John Doe Tribal Judge, White Mountain Apache Tribe, De-
fendants., 2006 WL 1182837, *1182837+ (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affi-
davit) (D.Ariz. Mar 20, 2006) First Amended Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to
F. R. Civ. Proc. 12(b)(2), (4), (5) and (6) (NO. 05-CV-04240-PCT-MHM)

davit) (D.Ariz. Mar 20, 2006) Second Amended Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to
F. R. Civ. Proc. 12(b)(2), (4), (5) and (6) (NO. 05-CV-04240-PCT-MHM)

davit) (D.Ariz. Mar 16, 2006) Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to F.R.Civ.Proc.
12(b)(2), (4), (5) and (6) (NO. 05-CV-04240-PCT-MHM)
1773 EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, Plaintiff, v. PE-
ABODY COAL CO., Defendant, Navajo Nation, ""Rule 19 Defendant."", 2006
WL 820941, *820941+ (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) (D.Ariz. Feb
17, 2006) Navajo Nation's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jur-
isdiction, Lack of Personal Jurisdiction, Insufficiency of of Process, Failure
to State a Claim, Lack of Capacity, Failure to Exhaust ... (NO.
CIV01-01050-PHX-MHM)
1774 EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, Plaintiff, v.
BASHAS' INC., Defendant, Navajo Nation, ""Rule 19 Defendant""., 2006 WL
1407291, *1407291+ (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) (D.Ariz. Feb
2006) Navajo Nation's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Juris-
diction, Lack of Personal Jurisdiction, Insufficiency of of Process, Failure to
State a Claim, Lack of Capacity, Failure to Exhaust ... (NO.
CIV05-2382-PHX-SMM)
1775 BRAND ADVANTAGE PROTEINS, LLC, an Idaho limited liability company,
Plaintiff, v. PECHANGA DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, a chartered cor-
poration of the Temecula Band of Luiseno Indians, sometimes referred to as
Pechanga Band of Mission Indians d/b/a/ Pechanga Resort & Casino, Defendant.,
2010 WL 2937191, *2937191 (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit)

(C.D.Cal. May 28, 2010) Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support
of Motion to Dismiss by Specially Appearing Defendant Pechanga Develop-
ment Corporation Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1)-(2) (NO. DTBX, ED-
CV10-00682-VAP)
1776 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. Harvey DURO, Sr.; et al., De-
fendants. CRUZNAVARRO, Delfina Ochoa Pedro Lopez and Orbelina Escobar,
Interveners/Defendants., 2009 WL 3246228, *3246228 (Trial Motion, Memor-
andum and Affidavit) (C.D.Cal. Feb 09, 2009) Interveners' Memorandum of
Points and Authorities in Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Ad-
judication (NO. 507CV01309) HN: 23 (S.Ct.)
1777 CITY OF LOS ANGELES, et al., Plaintiffs, v. COUNTY OF KERN, et al., De-
fendants., 2007 WL 4962921, *4962921 (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affi-
davit) (C.D.Cal. Aug 10, 2007) Order Re: Cross-Motions for Summary Judg-
ment, Plaintiffs' Motion to Strike (NO. CV06-5094GAF, VBKX) " HN: 30
(S.Ct.)
1778 CITY OF LOS ANGELES, et al., Plaintiffs, v. COUNTY OF KERN, et al., De-
davit) (C.D.Cal. Apr 19, 2007) Defendants'-Memorandum of Points and Au-
thorities in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment or, in the Alternative,
Partial Summary Judgment Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 56 (NO. CV06-5094GAF,
VBKX) HN: 30,31 (S.Ct.)
1779 NATIONAL PETROCHEMICAL & REFINERS ASSOCIATION, American
Trucking Associations, the Center for North American Energy Security, and the
Consumer Energy Alliance, Plaintiffs, v. James GOLDSTENE, in his official ca-
pacity as Executive Officer of the California Air Resources Board; Mary D.
Nichols, Daniel Sperling, Ken Yeager, Dorene D'Adamo, Barbara Riordan, John
R. Balmes, Lydia H. Kennard, Sandra Berg, Ron Roberts, John G. Telles, and
Ronald O., 2010 WL 1513119, *1513119+ (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Af-
fidavit) (E.D.Cal. Mar 31, 2010) Defendants' Memorandum of Points and Au-
thorities in Support of Motion to Dismiss (NO. CV-F-10-0163LJODLB)
HN: 31 (S.Ct.)
1780 ROCKY MOUNTAIN FARMERS UNION; Redwood County Minnesota Corn
and Soybeans Growers; Penny Newman Grain, Inc.; Fresno County Farm Bureau;
Nisei Farmers League; California Dairy Campaign; Rex Nederend; Growth En-
ergy and the Renewable Fuels Association, Plaintiffs, v. James N. GOLDSTENE,
in his official capacity as Executive Officer of the California Air Resources
Board, Defendant., 2010 WL 2205911, *2205911+ (Trial Motion, Memorandum
and Affidavit) (E.D.Cal. Mar 31, 2010) Defendant's Memorandum of Points
and Authorities in Support of Motion to Dismiss (NO.
109-CV-02234-LJO-DLB)
1781 CENTRAL VALLEY CHRYSLER-JEEP, INC.; et al., Plaintiffs, v. Catherine E.
WITHERSPOON, in her official capacity as Executive Officer of the California
Air Resources Board, Defendant, Association of International Automobile Manu-
facturers, Plaintiff-Intervenor, Sierra Club, Natural Resources Defense Council,

Environmental Defense, Bluewater Network, Global Exchange and Rainforest
Action Network, Defendant-Intervenors., 2006 WL 2969677, *2969677+ (Trial
Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) (E.D.Cal. Jun 01, 2006) Defendant and
Defendant-Intervenors' Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support
of Their Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings (NO. CIVF-04-6663RECLJO)
1782 STOP THE CASINO 101 COALTION, Robert Aherne, Amy Boyd, Lisa
CATELANI, Frank Egger Michael Erickson, Michael Healy, Linda Long, Lisa
Mcelroy, Pam Miller, Marilee Montgomery, Fred Soares, Jamie WALLACE,
Chip Worthington and Linda Worthington, Plaintiffs, v. Dirk KEMPTHORNE,
Secretary of the United States Department of the Interior; Carl J. Artman, As-
sisant Secretary of the United States Department of the Interior for Indian Af-
fairs; United States Department of the, 2009 WL 3502588, *3502588+ (Trial Mo-
tion, Memorandum and Affidavit) (N.D.Cal. Mar 14, 2009) Plaintiffs' Corrected
Opposition to Intervenor Federated Indians of Gration Rancheria's Motion
to Dismiss (NO. 308CV02846) HN: 20 (S.Ct.)
1783 Pearl ALVARDO, et al., Plaintiffs, v. TABLE MOUNTAIN RANCHERIA, et
al., Defendants., 2005 WL 3705064, *3705064+ (Trial Motion, Memorandum
and Affidavit) (N.D.Cal. May 28, 2005) Memorandum of Points and Authorit-
ies in Support of Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Complaint for Lack of Juris-
diction By Defendants Table Mountain Rancheria, Lewis Barnes, William
Walker, Carolyn ... (NO. C0500093MHP)
1784 Pearl ALVARADO, et al., Plaintiffs, v. TABLE MOUNTAIN RANCHERIA, et
and Affidavit) (N.D.Cal. Mar 28, 2005) Memorandum of Points and Authorit-
ies in Support of Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Complaint for Lack of Juris-
diction by Defendants Table Mountain Rancheria, Lewis Barnes, William
Walker, Carolyn ... (NO. C0500093MHP)
1785 In the Matter of THE SONOMA COUNTY FIRE CHIEF'S APPLICATION for
An Inspection Warrant Re Sonoma County Assessor's Parcel Number
131-040-001 or 3250 Highway 128, Geyserville., 2005 WL 3689167, *3689167
(Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) (N.D.Cal. Mar 25, 2005) Reply
Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Respondent's Motion
for Summary Judgment Or, in the Alternative, Summary Adjudication of Is-
sues F.R.C.P. Rule 56 (NO. C024873JSW)
1786 In the Matter of THE SONOMA COUNTY FIRE CHIEF'S APPLICATION for
An Inspection Warrant Re Sonoma County Assessor's Parcel Number
131-040-001 or 3250 Highway 128, Geyserville., 2005 WL 3689165, *3689165+
(Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) (N.D.Cal. Mar 04, 2005) Memor-
andum of Points and Authorities in Support of Respondent's Motion for
Summary Judgment or, in the Alternative, Summary Adjudication of Issues
F.R.C.P. Rule 56 (NO. C024873JSW)
1787 SONOMA FALLS DEVELOPERS, LLC, Sonoma Falls Lender, LLC, and
Sonoma Falls Manager, LLC, Plaintiff, v. DRY CREEK RANCHERIA BAND

OF POMO INDIANS OF CALIFORNIA, Defendant., 2002 WL 32964497,
*32964497+ (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) (N.D.Cal. Jul 08, 2002)
Corrected Reply Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Mo-
tion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint (NO. C014125VRW)
1788 SONOMA FALLS DEVELOPERS, LLC, Sonoma Falls Lender, LLC, and
Sonoma Falls Manager, LLC, Plaintiffs, v. DRY CREEK RANCHERIA BAND
OF POMO INDIANS OF CALIFORNIA, Defendant., 2002 WL 32964496,
*32964496 (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) (N.D.Cal. Jul 03, 2002)
Reply Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Motion to Dis-
miss Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint (NO. C014125VRW)
1789 RINCON BAND OF LUISENO MISSION INDIANS OF THE RINCON RE-
SERVATION, a/k/a Rincon San Luiseno Band of Mission Indians a/k/a Rincon
Band of Luiseno Indians, Plaintiff, v. Arnold SCHWARZENEGGER, Governor
of California; State of California, Defendants., 2007 WL 4587851, *4587851+
(Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) (S.D.Cal. Jun 01, 2007) Rincon's
Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Its Motion for Sum-
mary Judgment (NO. 04CV1151W, WMC)
1790 RINCON BAND OF LUISENO MISSION INDIANS OF THE RINCON RE-
SERVATION, a/k/a Rincon San Luiseno Band of Mission Indians a/k/a Rincon
Band of Luiseno Indians, Plaintiff, v. Arnold SCHWARZENEGGER, Governor
of California; State of California, Defendants., 2007 WL 4587848, *4587848+
(Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) (S.D.Cal. Feb 05, 2007) Rincon's
Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Motion for Partial
Summary Judgment Re taxation and no Substantial Value (NO.
04CV1151W, WMC)
1791 RINCON SAN LUISENO BAND OF MISSION INDIANS; and Hcal Corpora-
tion, a Nevada corporation, Plaintiffs, v. Dan MCALLISTER, in his official capa-
city as Treasurer of San Diego County, Defendant., 2004 WL 3684745, *3684745
(Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) (S.D.Cal. Jul 26, 2004) Reply
Memorandum in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction
(NO. 04CV1159H, BLM)
1792 VIEJAS BAND OF KUMEYAAY INDIANS, a Federally Recognized Indian
Tribe, Plaintiff, v. QWEST COMMUNICATIONS CORPORATION, INC., a
Delaware corporation, Defendant., 2004 WL 3684730, *3684730+ (Trial Motion,
Memorandum and Affidavit) (S.D.Cal. Jul 02, 2004) Plaintiff Viejas Band of
Kumey Aay Indians' Opposition to Defendant Qwest Communications Cor-
poration, Inc.'s Motion to Dismiss (NO. 04CV1016J, LSP)
1793 PALA BAND OF MISSION INDIANS, Plaintiff, v. Eric THOMSON, Defend-
ant., 2004 WL 3684415, *3684415 (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit)
(S.D.Cal. Feb 26, 2004) Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of
Motion for Temporary Restraining Order (NO. 04CV0419W, BLM)
1794 Rodney R. STARKEY and Almeda L. Starkey, Petitioners/Plaintiffs, v. THE
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, a political subdivision of the State of California;

The Department of Planning and Land Use, a division of the County of San
Diego; State of California; Director of The Department of Conservation; State
Mining and Geology Board; Four Eagle Materials, LLC, a California Limited Li-
ability Company; and Does 1 to 100, Inclusive, Respondents/Defendants., 2001
WL 34669749, *34669749+ (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit)
(S.D.Cal. Aug 09, 2001) Defendant Four Eagle Materials, LLC's Points and
Authorities (NO. 01CV1427IEG(JAH))
1795 PAUMA BAND OF LUISENO MISSION INDIANS, Plaintiff, v. Elizabeth Mesa
ALBA, Defendant., 1999 WL 33995533, *33995533+ (Trial Motion, Memor-
andum and Affidavit) (S.D.Cal. Jul 29, 1999) Memorandum of Points and Au-
thorities in Support of Plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgment (NO.
98-CV-2360-J, ABJ) HN: 10 (S.Ct.)
1796 LOS COYOTES BAND OF MISSION INDIANS, Plaintiff, v. Joseph KNIGHT,
aka Lud, Defendant., 1996 WL 33686585, *33686585+ (Trial Motion, Memor-
andum and Affidavit) (S.D.Cal. 1996) Memorandum of Points and Authorities
in Support of Plaintiff's Motion for Default Judgment (NO. 96-255-J, CGA)
1797 SCHAGHTICOKE TRIBAL NATION, Petitioner, v. Dirk KEMPTHORNE, Sec-

retary, Department of the Interior, et al., Respondents, State of Connecticut, Kent
School Corporation, the Connecticut Light and Power Company, and Town of
Kent, Intervenor-Respondents., 2007 WL 4753339, *4753339 (Trial Motion,
Memorandum and Affidavit) (D.Conn. Dec 07, 2007) Memorandum in Opposi-
tion To Intervenors-Respondents' and Federal Respondents' Cross-Motions
for Summary Judgment (NO. 306CV00081, PCD)
1798 AKIACHAK NATIVE COMMUNITY et al., Plaintiffs, v. DEPARTMENT OF
THE INTERIOR, et al., Defendants., 2008 WL 7005374, *7005374 (Trial Mo-
tion, Memorandum and Affidavit) (D.D.C. Sep 30, 2008) State of Alaska's Op-
position to Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment and Cross-Motion for
Summary Judgment (NO. 106CV00969)
1799 AMADOR COUNTY, California, Plaintiff, v. Dirk A. KEMPTHORNE, et al.,
Defendants., 2008 WL 7346974, *7346974 (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Af-
fidavit) (D.D.C. Sep 15, 2008) United States' Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion
for Preliminary Injunction (NO. 105CV00658) HN: 2 (S.Ct.)
1800 BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF CHEROKEE COUNTY, Kansas, Plaintiff,
v. KEMPTHORNE, et al., Defendants., 2008 WL 2900544, *2900544 (Trial Mo-
tion, Memorandum and Affidavit) (D.D.C. May 28, 2008) Statement of Points
and Authorities in Support of the United States's Motion to Dismiss (NO.
108-CV-00317-RWR)
v. Dirk KEMPTHORNE, in his official capacity as the Secretary of the Interior
and the United States Department of the Interior, Defendants., 2008 WL
2900543, *2900543 (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) (D.D.C. Mar 10,
2008) Plaintiff Board of Commissioners of Cherokee County's Reply in Sup-

port of Motion for Preliminary Injunction (NO. 108-CV-00317-RWR)
v. KEMPTHORNE, et al., Defendants., 2008 WL 2900542, *2900542 (Trial Mo-
tion, Memorandum and Affidavit) (D.D.C. Mar 03, 2008) The United States'
Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunction (NO.
108-CV-00317-RWR) HN: 2 (S.Ct.)
1803 ACE PROPERTY & CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY (f/k/a Cigna Prop-
erty & Casualty Insurance Co.), Alliance Insurance Companies, American Agri-
cultural Insurance Company, American Growers Insurance Company in Liquida-
tion c/o Director Nebraska Department of Insurance, Country Mutual Insurance
Company, Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Company of Iowa, Farmers Alliance
Mutual Insurance Company, Farmers Mutual Hail Insurance Company of Iowa
Great American Insurance Company, Hartford Fire, 2007 WL 811431, *811431
(Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) (D.D.C. Jan 25, 2007) Respondent's
Motion for Summary Judgment (Counts I-VIII), Motion for Partial Dis-
missal for Failure to Exhaust Administrative Remedies (Counts X-XI), Mo-
tion for Partial Dismissal for Failure to State ... (NO. 106CV01430, RMU)
1804 NATIONAL LEASED HOUSING ASSOCIATION, et al., Plaintiffs, v. UNITED

STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, et
and Affidavit) (D.D.C. Oct 24, 2005) Plaintiffs' Memorandum of Points and
Authorities in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment (NO.
03-1509, CKK)
1805 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, Tobacco-Free Kids Action Fund, et
al., Plaintiff-Intervenors, v. PHILIP MORRIS USA INC. (f/k/a Philip Morris In-
corporated), et al., Defendants., 2005 WL 3560996, *3560996+ (Trial Motion,
Memorandum and Affidavit) (D.D.C. Sep 29, 2005) Joint Defendants' Post-
Trial Reply Brief in Support of their Affirmative Defenses (NO. 99-CV-2496,
GK) " HN: 20,21 (S.Ct.)
1806 Confederated SALISH and Kootenai Tribes, et al., Plaintiffs, v. NATIONAL IN-
DIAN GAMING COMMISSION, et al., Defendants., 2005 WL 3549298,
*3549298+ (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) (D.D.C. Sep 19, 2005)
California Nation Indian Gaming Association's and National Indian Gaming
Association's Amicus Curiae Brief in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion for Sum-
mary Judgment (NO. 10CV00495, RWR)
1807 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, Tobacco-Free Kids Action Fund,
American Cancer Society, American Heart Association, American Lung Associ-
ation, Americans for Nonsmokers Rights, and National African American To-
bacco Prevention Network, Intervenors. v. PHILIP MORRIS USA INC., f/k/a
Philip Morris Inc., et al., Defendants., 2005 WL 3560990, *3560990+ (Trial Mo-
tion, Memorandum and Affidavit) (D.D.C. Sep 19, 2005) United States Post-
Trial Brief in Opposition to Post-Trial Brief of Joint Defendants on Affirm-
ative Defenses (NO. 99-CV-02496, GK)

1808 COSTELLO, v. SEMINOLE TRIBE OF FLORIDA., 2010 WL 2833596,
*2833596 (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) (M.D.Fla. May 18, 2010)
Motion of Seminole Tribe of Florida to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter
Jurisdiction, (Dispositive Motion) (NO. 810CV00778)
1809 William Bernard PERRY, Plaintiff, v. SEMINOLE TRIBE OF FLORIDA, a fed-
erally recognized Indian tribe; Seminole Hard Rock Casino, Inc., Seminole Police
Department, William Latchford, Chief of Police of Seminole Police Department
and Johnny Nuckles, Defendants., 2009 WL 4320052, *4320052 (Trial Motion,
Memorandum and Affidavit) (M.D.Fla. Apr 15, 2009) Motion to Dismiss for
Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction of Defendants, Seminole Tribe of Flor-
ida, Seminole Police Department, William Latchford and Johnny Nuckles
(Dispositive Motion) (NO. 808-CV-2455-T17-TBM)
1810 Michael LARSON and Dawn Larson, Plaintiffs, v. UNITED STATES; Vanessa
Koloske; Donald L. Phillips, Allied Property and Casualty Insurance Company, a
foreign profit corporation, Defendants., 2009 WL 3555228, *3555228 (Trial Mo-
tion, Memorandum and Affidavit) (M.D.Fla. Apr 02, 2009) Motion to Dismiss
for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction of Defendant, Vanessa Koloske
(Dispositive Motion) (NO. 208CV00003)
1811 Victoria VELASQUEZ, as presumptive personal representative of the Estate of
Roselindo Velasquez and on behalf of herself as wife of Decedent Roselindo
Velasquez, Plaintiffs., v. HARD ROCK CAFE INTERNATIONAL, INC, a Flor-
ida corporation, Seminole Tribe of Florida, a federally recognized Indian tribe d/
b/a Seminole Gaming and Seminole Indian Casino-Immokalee, and Alex Pickles,
a Florida Resident, Defendants., 2009 WL 3501330, *3501330 (Trial Motion,
Memorandum and Affidavit) (M.D.Fla. Mar 13, 2009) Seminole Tribe of Flor-
ida's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction with
Memorandum of Supporting Points and Authorities (NO. 208CV00346)
1812 NATIONAL BUSINESS AVIATION ASSOCIATION, INC., and General Avi-
ation Manufacturers Association, Plaintiffs, v. CITY OF NAPLES AIRPORT
AUTHORITY, Defendant., 2001 WL 34853518, *34853518+ (Trial Motion,
Memorandum and Affidavit) (M.D.Fla. Jun 19, 2001) Memorandum in Support
of Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (NO. 200-CV-572-FTM-29D)
1813 Jerry BAINBRIDGE, et al, Plaintiffs, v. John BUSH, Governor of the State of
Florida, et al, Defendants., 2001 WL 34780792, *34780792 (Trial Motion,
Memorandum and Affidavit) (M.D.Fla. Mar 23, 2001) Defendant's Memor-
andum in Support of His Motion for Summary Judgment (NO.
899-CV-2681-T-27E)
1814 PPI, INC., Plaintiff, v. Dirk KEMPTHORNE, in his Official Capacity as Secret-
ary of the Interior, George Skibine, in his Official Capacity as Acting Assistant
Secretary of the Interior - Indian Affairs and Charles Crist, in his Official Capa-
city as Governor of Florida., Defendants., 2008 WL 4076377, *4076377 (Trial
Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) (N.D.Fla. Jun 17, 2008) Governor Crist's
Memorandum in Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunction

(NO. 408CV00248) "
WL 4895928, *4895928+ (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) (S.D.Fla.
Sep 29, 2010) Petition to Quash Summons to Morgan Stanley Smith Barney
for Records of the Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of Florida (NO. 110CV23507)
" HN: 8 (S.Ct.)
1816 MICCOSUKEE TRIBE OF INDIANS, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES OF
AMERICA, Respondent., 2010 WL 3901042, *3901042 (Trial Motion, Memor-
andum and Affidavit) (S.D.Fla. Aug 02, 2010) United States' Reply to Petition-
er's Response to the Motion to Deny Petition to Quash (NO.
10-CV-21332-CIV-GOLD) HN: 10 (S.Ct.)
WL 3901041, *3901041+ (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) (S.D.Fla.
Jul 21, 2010) Petitioner Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of Florida's Response to
the Government's Motion to Deny Petition to Quash (NO.
10-CV-21332-CIV-GOLD) " HN: 1 (S.Ct.)
1818 Robert HENIN, Plaintiff, v. Officer J. CANCEL, Officer M. Perez, Officer John
Doe I, John Doe II, and the United States of America, Defendants., 2010 WL
2217681, *2217681 (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) (S.D.Fla. Apr
23, 2010) Motion to Dismiss Count IV of Plaintiff's First Amended Com-
plaint and Incorporated Memorandum of Law (NO. 109CV22965)
1819 Dave GUEVARA, Plaintiff, v. MICCOSUKEE TRIBE OF INDIANS OF FLOR-
IDA, Defendant., 2009 WL 4872499, *4872499+ (Trial Motion, Memorandum
and Affidavit) (S.D.Fla. May 08, 2009) Miccosukee Tribe's Motion to Dismiss
Complaint and Incorporated Memorandum of Law (NO.
09-CV-20537-GRAHAM/T)
1820 LIVE FRONT ROW, LLC, a Florida limited liability company, Plaintiff, v.
SEMINOLE TRIBE OF FLORIDA, a federally recognized Indian tribe, et al, De-
fendants., 2007 WL 3282819, *3282819 (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affi-
davit) (S.D.Fla. Sep 04, 2007) Motion of Defendant, Seminole Tribe of Flor-
ida, to Dismiss Supplemental/Amended Complaint for Lack of Subject Mat-
ter Jurisdiction and for Failure to State A Claim and Memorandum of Sup-
porting Points ... (NO. 07-60160-CIV-ALTONAG)
1821 LIVE FRONT ROW, LLC, a Florida limited liability company, Plaintiff, v.
SEMINOLE TRIBE OF FLORIDA, Defendant., 2007 WL 1293642, *1293642
(Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) (S.D.Fla. Mar 15, 2007) Motion of
Defendant, Seminole Tribe of Florida, to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter
Jurisdiction and Memorandum of Supporting Points and Authorities (NO.
07-60160-CIV-ALTONAG)
1822 Felix LOBO and Liza Suarez, Plaintiffs, v. MICCOSUKEE TRIBE OF INDIANS
OF FLORIDA, and Billy Cypress, Defendants., 2006 WL 4034440, *4034440+

(Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) (S.D.Fla. Dec 20, 2006) Reply to
Plaintiffs' Response to the Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of Florida and
Chairman Billy Cypress' Motion to Dismiss Amended Complaint (NO.
06-21595-CIV-HOEVELE)
1823 Felix LOBO and Liza Suarez, Plaintiffs, v. MICCOSUKEE TRIBE OF INDIANS
OF FLORIDA, and Billy Cypress, Defendants., 2006 WL 4034442, *4034442+
(Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) (S.D.Fla. Dec 14, 2006) Miccosukee
Tribe of Indians of Florida and Chairman Billy Cypress' Motion to Dismiss
Amended Complaint and Incorporated Memorandum of Law (NO.
06-21595-CIV-HOEVELE)
1824 Felix LOBO, Plaintiff, v. MICCOSUKEE TRIBE OF INDIANS OF FLORIDA,
and Billy Cypress, Defendants., 2006 WL 3668007, *3668007+ (Trial Motion,
Memorandum and Affidavit) (S.D.Fla. Oct 13, 2006) Reply to Plaintiff's Re-
sponse to the Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of Florida and Chairman Billy
Cypress' Motion to Dismiss Complaint and Motion for Protective Order
(NO. 06-21595-CIV-HOEVELE) HN: 1 (S.Ct.)
1825 Felix LOBO, Plaintiff, v. MICCOSUKEE TRIBE OF INDIANS OF FLORIDA,
and Billy Cypress, Defendants., 2006 WL 3668005, *3668005+ (Trial Motion,
Memorandum and Affidavit) (S.D.Fla. Sep 28, 2006) Miccosukee Tribe of Indi-
ans of Florida and Chairman Billy Cypress' Motion to Dismiss Complaint
and Incorporated Memorandum of Law (NO. 06-21595-CIV-HOEVELE)
HN: 5 (S.Ct.)
1826 MICCOSUKEE TRIBE OF INDIANS OF FLORIDA, et al., Plaintiff, v. SOUTH
FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT, et al., Defendants., 2006 WL
5533954, *5533954+ (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) (S.D.Fla. Jun
05, 2006) Reply to Defendant South Florida Water Management District's
Response to the Miccosukee Tribe's Motion to Quash and for Protective Or-
der (NO. 98-6056-CIV-LENARD/K) HN: 5,8 (S.Ct.)
1827 MICCOSUKEE TRIBE OF INDIANS OF FLORIDA, et al., Plaintiffs, v.
SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT, et al., Defendants.,
2006 WL 5533953, *5533953+ (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit)
(S.D.Fla. May 26, 2006) Defendant South Florida Water Management Dis-
trict's Motion to Compel and Memorandum in Opposition to the Miccosukee
Tribe's Motion to Quash and for Protective Order (NO.
98-CV-6056-LENARD/KL) HN: 23 (S.Ct.)
1828 MICCOSUKEE TRIBE OF INDIANS OF FLORIDA, et al, Plaintiffs, v. SOUTH
FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT, et al, Defendants., 2006 WL
5533951, *5533951+ (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) (S.D.Fla. May
01, 2006) Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of Florida's Motion to Quash and for
Protective Order On Defendants' Rule 30(b)(6) Deposition Re-Notice Re-
questing Immune Tribal Data. and Incorporated Memorandum of Law ...
(NO. 98-CV-6056-LENARD/KL) HN: 5,8 (S.Ct.)
1829 FRIENDS OF THE EVERGLADES, and Fishermen Against Destruction of the

Environment, Inc., Plaintiffs, MICCOSUKEE TRIBE OF INDIANS OF FLOR-
IDA, a federally recognized Indian tribe, Intervenor-Plaintiff, v. SOUTH FLOR-
IDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT, et al., Defendant., 2006 WL
5952214, *5952214 (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) (S.D.Fla. Jan 18,
2006) Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of Florida's Consolidated Reply to De-
fendants' Reponse to the Tribe's Motion for Protective Order (NO.
902CV80309)
IDA, a Florida municipality, Intervenor-Plaintiff, v. SOUTH FLORIDA WATER
MANAGEMENT DISTRICT, et al., Defendants., 2005 WL 6165790, *6165790+
(Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) (S.D.Fla. Jul 12, 2005) Consolidated
Objections of Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of Florida to Magistrate Judge's
Rulings On Tribal Immunity and Motion for Stay of Magistrate's Rulings
(NO. 902CV80309) HN: 8 (S.Ct.)
Environment, Inc., Plaintiff, MICCOSUKEE TRIBE OF INDIANS OF FLOR-
(Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) (S.D.Fla. Jun 30, 2005) Reply of
Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of Florida to United States Sugar Corp.'s Re-
sponse to Tribe's Consolidated Motion for Protective Order and Motion to
Quash Notices Duces Tecum (NO. 902CV80309) HN: 8 (S.Ct.)
(Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) (S.D.Fla. May 10, 2005) Reply to
South Florida Water Management District's Response to Miccosukee Tribe
of Indians of Florida's Motion to Dismiss Counterclaim (NO. 902CV80309)
HN: 5 (S.Ct.)
1833 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Petitioner, v. MICCOSUKEE RESORT AND
CONVENTION CENTER, Respondent., 2005 WL 3702827, *3702827 (Trial
Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) (S.D.Fla. Feb 01, 2005) United States of
America's Memorandum in Support of Petition for Summary Enforcement
of Administrative Subpoenas and Application for Order to Show Cause (NO.
05-20298CIV-SEITZ)
1834 MICCOSUKEE TRIBE OF INDIANS OF FLORIDA, Plaintiff, v. KRAUS-
ANDERSON CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, Defendant., 2004 WL 3676080,
*3676080 (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) (S.D.Fla. 2004) Plaintiff
Miccosukee Tribe's Response to Kraus-Anderson's Motion for Final Sum-
mary Judgment Incorporating Memorandum of Law (NO.
04-22774-CIV-UNGARO-)
1835 SEMINOLE INDIAN TRIBE OF FLORIDA, a federally recognized Indian tribe,

Plaintiff, v. RAYMOND JAMES & ASSOCIATES, INC., a Florida corporation;
Peter T. Ripich; James E. Billie; and Timmy Wayne Cox, Defendants., 2002 WL
32708127, *32708127 (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) (S.D.Fla. Feb
19, 2002) Defendant James E. Billie's Motion to Dismiss Complaint and
Memorandum of Law in Support Thereof (NO. 01-3765-CIV-MORE/SUL)

dian Tribe, Plaintiff, v. THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; United States
Marshall Service; State of Florida; and Katherine Fernandez-Rundle, in her offi-
cial capacity as the State Attorney for the Eleventh Judicial Circuit, of Florida,
Defendants., 2000 WL 35566960, *35566960 (Trial Motion, Memorandum and
Affidavit) (S.D.Fla. Sep 14, 2000) Emergency Motion for Preliminary Injunc-
tion, for Protective Order, and to Quash Subpoenas (NO. 00CV03453)
1837 Richard W. PENA, Plaintiff, v. MICCOSUKEE SERVICE PLAZA; Raymond
Saks, Operations Manager; and Billy Cypress, Individually, Defendants., 2000
WL 34459484, *34459484 (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) (S.D.Fla.
Aug 25, 2000) Defendants' Motion for Protective Order and Stay of Discov-
ery and Incorporated Memorandum of Law (NO. 00-6663-CIV-MIDDLEBR)

Saks; and Billy Cypress, Individually, Defendants., 2000 WL 34459473,
*34459473 (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) (S.D.Fla. Jul 25, 2000)
Motion to Dismiss Amended Complaint and Memorandum of Law in Sup-
port Thereof (NO. 00-6663-CIV-MIDDLEBR)
Saks; and Billy Cypress, Individually, Defendants., 2000 WL 34459468,
*34459468 (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) (S.D.Fla. Jun 27, 2000)
Motion to Dismiss Complaint and Memorandum of Law in Support Thereof
(NO. 00-6663-CIV-MIDDLEBR)
1840 Ernestine Ching YOUNG, individually, and Ernestine C. Young, Trustee of the
wallace L. Young Trust dated April 12, 2005 (Residuary Trust); James M. Sher-
man, also known as James Malcolm Sherman, and Akiko S. Sherman, also known
as Akiko Sakiyama Sherman, Trustees under that certain unrecorded James M.
Sherman and Akiko S. Sherman Revocable Trust; Jan Camille Bellinger, Trustee
of the Jan Camille Bellinger Revocable Living Trust, under that certain, 2009 WL
4024913, *4024913 (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) (D.Hawai'i Mar
24, 2009) Defendant City and County of Honolulu's Memorandum in Oppos-
ition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment on Counts I and III of the
First Amended Complaint Filed February 17, 2009; Certificate of ... (NO.
107CV00068) HN: 21 (S.Ct.)
1841 Ernestine Ching YOUNG, individually, and Ernestine C. Young, Trustee of the
Wallace L. Young Trust dated April 12, 2005 (Residuary Trust); James M. Sher-
man, also known as James Malcolm Sherman, and Akiko S. Sherman, also known
as Akiko Sakiyama Sherman, Trustees under that certain unrecorded James M.

Sherman and Akiko S. Sherman Revocable Trust; Jan Camille Bellinger, Trustee
of the Jan Camille Bellinger Revocable Living Trust, under that certain, 2009 WL
4024914, *4024914+ (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) (D.Hawai'i
Mar 24, 2009) Memorandum in Opposition to Defendant's Motion for Partial
Summary Judgment On Counts I, II and III of Plaintiffs' First Amended
Complaint Filed February 26, 2007; Certificate of Compliance with Word ...
(NO. 107CV00068) HN: 17,24 (S.Ct.)
1842 IDAHO POWER COMPANY, an Idaho Corporation, Plaintiff, v. Delbert
FARMER, in his Capacity as Revenue Director for the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes
of the Fort Hall Reservation Idaho, Defendant., 2003 WL 24256776, *24256776+
(Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) (D.Idaho Jul 31, 2003) Defendant's
Brief in Support of Motion to Dismiss (NO. CIV02-217-E-BLW)
1843 Coeur D'Alene TRIBE, Plaintiff, v. Duwayne D. HAMMOND, Jr., Coleen Grant;
Larry Watson; and Severina Sam Haws, in their official capacity as Commission-
er of the Idaho State Tax Commission, Defendants. Nez Perce TRIBE, Plaintiff,
v. Duwayne D. HAMMOND, Jr., Coleen Grant; Larry Watson; and Severina Sam
Haws, in their official capacity as Commissioners of the Idaho State Tax Com-
mission, Defendants., 2002 WL 34397437, *34397437+ (Trial Motion, Memor-
andum and Affidavit) (D.Idaho Jun 14, 2002) Coeur D'Alene Tribe's Opposi-
tion to Commissioners' Motion to Dismiss (NO. 102CV00185) HN: 1,5
(S.Ct.)
1844 Kenneth Dewayne VONWELLER, an individual, and Jerry L. Facer, Mavis J.
Facer, husband and wife, dba Execu-Taxi of Pocatello, Plaintiffs, v. Candice
BRONCHO, individually and as parent and natural guardian of Reese M. Coby, a
minor child; Shoshone-Bannock Tribe; and the Honorable Howard Doore, Tribal
Judge, Defendants., 2002 WL 32972178, *32972178+ (Trial Motion, Memor-
andum and Affidavit) (D.Idaho May 14, 2002) Defendants Shoshone-Bannock
Tribes' and Doore's Memorandum in Support of Motion to Dismiss (NO.
CIV02-0106-E-BLW)
1845 Kenneth Dewayne VONWELLER, an individual, and Jerry L. Facer, Mavis J,
Facer, husband and wife, dba Execu-taxi of pocatello, Plaintiffs, v. Candice
BRONCHO, individually and as parent and natural guardian of Reese M. Coby, a
minor child; Shoshone Tribe; Bannock Tribe; and the Honorable Howard Doore,
Tribal Judge, Defendants., 2002 WL 32972177, *32972177 (Trial Motion,
Memorandum and Affidavit) (D.Idaho Apr 22, 2002) Memorandum in Support
of Defendant Broncho's Objection to Plaintiffs' Motion for Temporary Re-
straining Order and Preliminary Injunction (NO. CV-02-0106-E-BLW)
1846 NORTHWEST PIPELINE CORPORATION, Plaintiff, v. Gale A. NORTON,
United States Secretary of the Interior, Defendant, v. Fort hall Landowners Alli-
ance, Inc., Mary Warren, Faith Amanda Warren, Joseph Nevada, Lyle Begay,
Melinda Begay, and Della Tinno Dixey, Intervenors., 2001 WL 34874419,
*34874419 (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) (D.Idaho Dec 06, 2001)
Reply to Northwest Pipeline Corporation's Response to Defendant's Motion
to Dismiss (NO. CIV01-0192-E-BLW)

1847 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. FMC CORPORATION, Defend-
ant., 2000 WL 35720237, *35720237 (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit)
(D.Idaho Dec 29, 2000) Memorandum of the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes in
Opposition to FMC Corporation's Motion for Declaratory Relief (NO.
498CV00406) HN: 10 (S.Ct.)
1848 ACE PROPERTY & CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY (f/k/a Cigna Prop-
erty & Casualty Insurance Company), et al Plaintiffs, v. FEDERAL CROP IN-
SURANCE CORPORATION, A Corporation Within the United States Depart-
ment of Agirculture, and Risk Management Agency, an Agency Within the
United States Department of Agriculture, Defendants., 2004 WL 3126050,
*3126050 (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) (S.D.Iowa Sep 16, 2004)
Defendant's Motion to Dismiss, or Alternatively, Motion for Summary Judg-
ment and Resistance to Plaintiffs' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment
(NO. 104-CV-40036)
1849 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. Jeremy Wayne HOOKER, De-
fendant., 2010 WL 5815487, *5815487 (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affi-
davit) (D.Kan. Nov 19, 2010) Motion to Dismiss Based on Entrapment by Es-
toppel or, in the Alternative, Motion in Limine for Jury Instruction on En-
trapment by Estoppel as an Affirmative Defense (NO. 08-10208-06MLB)
HN: 7 (S.Ct.)
1850 Antonio GONZALEZ, Plaintiff, v. 7TH STREET CASINO, Defendant., 2010
WL 1555775, *1555775 (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) (D.Kan. Feb
17, 2010) Defendant's Motion to Dismiss, or Alternative Motion for Sum-
mary Judgment, and Brief in Support (NO. 09-CV-2674-CM-DWJ) "
HN: 20 (S.Ct.)
1851 Dorothy LEWIS, Plaintiff, v. WYANDOTTE GAMING ENTERPRISES d/b/a
7th Street Casino, Defendant., 2008 WL 5354496, *5354496 (Trial Motion,
Memorandum and Affidavit) (D.Kan. Aug 15, 2008) Defendant's Motion for
Summary Judgment and Brief in Support (NO. 08-1155-JTM-KMH) "
HN: 20 (S.Ct.)
1852 Wyandotte NATION, a federally-recognized Indian tribe, Plaintiff, v. NATION-
AL INDIAN GAMING COMMISSION, et al., Defendants., 2005 WL 3611921,
*3611921+ (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) (D.Kan. Nov 16, 2005)
Reply to Defendants' Response to the Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judg-
ment (NO. 05-2210-JAR-JPO)
1853 Joseph DISTEFANO, Jr., Plaintiff, v. TUNICA-BILOXI INDIAN TRIBE OF
LOUISIANA d/b/a Paragon Casino Resort, Earl J. Barbry, Sr., Harold Pierete,
Sr., Donald Ray Johnson, Jr. Rudy Wambsgans, Catherine Pierite-Farbe, Bobby
Pierite, Sr., TIG Insurance Company, ABC Insurance Company, John Doe #1,
John Doe #2, John Doe #3, and John Doe #4., 2009 WL 6583673, *6583673
(Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) (M.D.La. Dec 07, 2009) Memor-
andum in Support of Motion to Dismiss or in the Alterantive Motion for Ab-
stention Until Tribal Remedies Are Exhausted (NO. 309CV00252)

1854 Joseph DISTEFANO, Jr., Plaintiff, v. TUNICA-BILOXI INDIAN TRIBE OF
LOUISIANA d/b/a Paragon Casino Resort, Earl J. Barbry, Sr., Harold Pierete,
Sr., Donald Ray Johnson, Jr. Rudy Wambsgans, Catherine Pierite-Farbe, Bobby
Pierite, Sr., TIG Insurance Company, ABC Insurance Company, John Doe #1,
John Doe #2, John Doe #3, and John Doe #4., 2009 WL 6583674, *6583674+
(Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) (M.D.La. Dec 07, 2009) Memor-
andum in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment or Alternatively, for
Abstention (NO. 309CV00252)
1855 Lionel B. JORDAN, Plaintiffs, v. Paragon CASINO, Defendants., 2006 WL
1443804, *1443804+ (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) (W.D.La. Apr
24, 2006) Memorandum in Support of Motion to Dismiss (NO. 5-1923-A)
1856 TUNICA-BILOXI INDIANS OF LA, v. Kirby M. PECOT, et al., 2002 WL
32653207, *32653207 (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) (W.D.La. Aug
26, 2002) Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion to Remand or Alternative Motion
to Abstain (NO. 102CV1512)
1857 Nulankeyutmonen NKIHTAQMIKON, et al., Plaintiffs, Robert K. Impson, Act-
ing Regional Director, Eastern Region, Bureau of Indian Affairs, et al., Defend-
ants., 2006 WL 1315327, *1315327 (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit)
(D.Me. Apr 18, 2006) Defendants' Reply in Support of Defendants' Motion to
Dismiss (NO. 05-CV-00168-JAW)
1858 HOULTON BAND OF MALISEET INDIANS, Plaintiff, v. Patricia E. RYAN,
Executive Director Maine Human Rights Commission, et al., Defendants., 2006
WL 1040923, *1040923 (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) (D.Me. Mar
06, 2006) Plaintiff's Objections to Recommended Decision on Motion to Dis-
miss Defendant Zetts and Request for Oral Argument (NO.
105-CV-00180-JAW)
Executive Director Maine Human Rights Commission, et al. Defendants., 2006
WL 616406, *616406 (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) (D.Me. Feb
17, 2006) Plaintiff's Objections to the Recommended Decision on Motion to
Dismiss and Request for Oral Argument (NO. 105-CV-00180-JAW)
Executive Director Maine Human Rights Commission, et al., Defendants., 2006
WL 352139, *352139 (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) (D.Me. Jan 13,
2006) Plaintiff's Objection to State Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (NO.
05-180-B-W)
1861 AROOSTOOK BAND OF MICMACS, Plaintiff, v. Patricia E. RYAN, et als.,
Affidavit) (D.Me. Nov 21, 2003) Plaintiff's Memorandum Opposing Defend-
ants' Motions for Summary Judgment (NO. CV-03-24-B-K) HN: 1
(S.Ct.)
1862 AROOSTOOK BAND OF MICMACS, Plaintiff, v. Patricia E. RYAN, et als.,

Affidavit) (D.Me. Oct 17, 2003) Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment
and Incorporated Memorandum of Law (NO. CV-03-24-B-K) " HN: 21
(S.Ct.)
1863 LITTLE RIVER BAND OF OTTAWA INDIANS, Plaintiff, v. NATIONAL
LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Defendant., 2009 WL 3661162, *3661162 (Trial
Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) (W.D.Mich. Sep 08, 2009) Reply of the
Little River Band of Ottawa Indians to the National Labor Relations Board's
Response to Its Motion for Summary Judgment (NO. 109-CV-141)
1864 KEWEENAW BAY INDIAN COMMUNITY, a federally-recognized Indian
tribe, on its own behalf and as parens patriae for its members, Plaintiff, v. Robert
J. KLEINE, Treasurer of the State of Michigan; Jay Rising, former Treasurer of
the State of Michigan; Michael Reynolds, Administrator of the Collection Divi-
sion of the Michigan Department of Treasury; Walter A. Fratzke, Native Americ-
an Affairs Specialist of the Michigan Department of Treasury; and Terri Lynn
Land, Secretary, 2008 WL 1986897, *1986897 (Trial Motion, Memorandum and
Affidavit) (W.D.Mich. Feb 05, 2008) Plaintiff's Reply Memorandum in Sup-
port of Second Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (NO. 205CV00224)
HN: 19 (S.Ct.)
1865 MICHIGAN MIGRANT LEGAL ASSISTANCE PROJECT, INC., a Michigan
Non-Profit Corporation, Plaintiff, v. SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION,
Defendant., 2004 WL 3333766, *3333766 (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affi-
davit) (W.D.Mich. Nov 16, 2004) Memorandum in Opposition to Defendant's
Motion to Dismiss and Plaintiff's Request for Attorney Fees and Litigation
Costs (NO. 104-CV-0578)
1866 Norma Jean MULHOLLAND, Plaintiff, v. Victories CASINO, Little Traverse
Bay Bands of Odawa Indians, Timothy Allen Harrington, Ronald Olson and Dav-
id Bernard, Defendants., 2002 WL 32644004, *32644004+ (Trial Motion,
Memorandum and Affidavit) (W.D.Mich. Dec 19, 2002) Brief in Support of De-
fendants' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint (NO. 102CV0820)
ment of Revenue, Defendant., 2009 WL 5185684, *5185684+ (Trial Motion,
Memorandum and Affidavit) (D.Minn. Oct 02, 2009) Memorandum of Defend-
ant Ward Einess in Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment
(NO. 009CV00385) HN: 20 (S.Ct.)
Memorandum and Affidavit) (D.Minn. Aug 24, 2009) Memorandum in Support
of Plaintiff's Amended Motion for Summary Judgment (NO. 009CV00385) "
HN: 1,8 (S.Ct.)

Memorandum and Affidavit) (D.Minn. May 14, 2009) Memorandum in Sup-
port of Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment (NO. 09-CV-00385, PAM/
RLE) " HN: 1,5,8 (S.Ct.)
1870 Douglas Hiram COLEMAN, Plaintiff, v. DULUTH POLICE DEPARTMENT;
Chief Gordon Ramsay; Officer Tinsley And Other Unidentified Duluth Police
Officers, both individually and in their official capacity, and Fond-Du-Luth
Casino Security; Unidentified Security Officers, both individually and in their of-
ficial capacity; Jim Urness, Manager/Chief of Security, both individually and in
his official capacity, Defendants., 2007 WL 4588752, *4588752 (Trial Motion,
Memorandum and Affidavit) (D.Minn. Feb 28, 2007) Memorandum of Law in
Support of Motion to Dismiss (NO. CV07-473, DWF/RLE)
1871 Johnny L. GRAHAM, Plaintiff, v. APPLIED GEO TECHNOLOGIES, INC. d/b/a
Chahta Enterprise, Allen Hines, Tim Nelson Michael Miller And Sandra Booker
In Their Individual And Official Capacities As President, Director of Administra-
tion, Vice President of Operations and Senior Quality Manager Respectively,
John Does entities 1-10 and John Does 1-10, Defendants., 2008 WL 7138038,
*7138038 (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) (S.D.Miss. Jun 05, 2008)
Memorandum in Support of Motion to Dismiss for Failure to Exhaust Tribal
Remedies (NO. 408CV00026-TSL-CKA) HN: 8 (S.Ct.)
1872 Marvin Taylor BARNHILL, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Ross J. DAVIDSON, Adminis-
trator, Risk Management Agency, et al., Defendants., 2004 WL 3685062,
*3685062+ (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) (E.D.N.C. Aug 05, 2004)
Defendants' Motion for Reconsideration, and Supporting Memorandum
(NO. 402-CV-159-H(4))
1873 Marvin Taylor BARNHILL, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Ross J. DAVIDSON, Adminis-
trator, Risk Management Agency, et al., Defendants., 2004 WL 5590945,
*5590945+ (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) (E.D.N.C. Aug 05, 2004)
Defendants' Motion for Reconsideration, and Supporting Memorandum
(NO. 4)) "
1874 OUTBOARD MARINE CORPORATION, Plaintiff, v. Robin LISTMAN, De-
davit) (D.Nev. Aug 16, 2010) Plaintiff's Sur-Reply to Defendant's 08/09/10
Reply Memorandum (D.E.30) in Support of Motion to Dismiss Complaint for
Declaratory Relief (NO. 310-CV-00311-LRH-RAM)
1875 UTE MOUNTAIN UTE TRIBE, v. GOODWIN., 2009 WL 4459286, *4459286+
(Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) (D.N.M. Sep 01, 2009) Post-Trial
Memorandum Brief of the Defendant, Secretary Rick Homans (NO.
07-CV-00772JAP/WDS)
1876 State of New Mexico ex rel Gary K. King, Attorney General, Plaintiff, v. NAT-
IVE WHOLESALE SUPPLY COMPANY, a corporation, Does 1 through 25 In-
clusive, Defendant., 2008 WL 7317724, *7317724 (Trial Motion, Memorandum
and Affidavit) (D.N.M. Oct 29, 2008) Defendant's Response to Plaintiff's Mo-

tion to Remand (NO. CV08-856MCA/LAM) HN: 1 (S.Ct.)
1877 David BALES, Plaintiff, v. CHICKASAW NATION INDUSTRIES, INC., De-
fendant., 2008 WL 4155895, *4155895+ (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affi-
davit) (D.N.M. May 19, 2008) Defendant's Reply in Support of its Motion to
Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction (NO. 207CV01024)
1878 UTE MOUNTAIN UTE TRIBE, Plaintiff, v. Jan GOODWIN, Secretary of the
Taxation and Revenue Department for the State of New Mexico, Defendant.,
(D.N.M. Aug 16, 2007) Defendant's Reply Brief in Support of Motion to Dis-
miss (NO. 07-CV-00772LFG/WDS)
.... Charlie LEE, et al., Plaintiffs, v. UNITED STATES AIR FORCE; et al., Defend-
ants. (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) (D.N.M. Mar 22, 1999) De-
fendants' Reply to Plaintiffs' Response to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss
Complaint in Part (NO. CIV98-1056BB/JHG) (Text not available on WEST-
LAW)
1880 State of New York; David A. Paterson, in his capacity as Governor of the State of
New York; Andrew M. Cuomo, in his capacity as Attorney General of the State
of New York; Madison County, New York; and Oneida County, New York,
Plaintiffs, v. Kenneth L. SALAZAR, Secretary, United States Department of the
Interior; James E. Cason, Associate Deputy Secretary of the Interior; P. Lynn
Scarlett, Deputy Secretary of the Interior; Franklin Keel, Eastern Regional Dir-
ector,, 2009 WL 4054391, *4054391 (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit)
(N.D.N.Y. Jan 30, 2009) United States' Reply in Support of Motion for Partial
Dismissal (NO. 608-CV-00644-LEK-GJD) " HN: 19,21 (S.Ct.)
1881 Rachel MYERS, Plaintiff, v. Seneca Niagara CASINO, Defendant., 2005 WL
4136399, *4136399+ (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) (N.D.N.Y. Aug
22, 2005) Memorandum of Seneca Niagara Falls Gaming Corporation in
Support of its Motion to Dismiss all Claims as Barred by Tribal Sovereign
Immunity (NO. 05CV0064, LEK/DRH)
1882 SENECA-CAYUGA TRIBE OF OKLAHOMA, a federally recognized Indian
Tribe, Plaintiff/Counterclaim-Defendants, v. TOWN OF AURELIUS, New York,
Town of Montezuma, New York and County of Cayuga, New York, Defendants/
Counterclaim-Plaintiffs, George E. Pataki, as Governor of the State of New York
and Eliot Spitzer, as Attorney General of the State of New York, Intervenors-De-
fendants/Counterclaim-Plaintiffs, The, 2004 WL 4000581, *4000581+ (Trial Mo-
tion, Memorandum and Affidavit) (N.D.N.Y. Apr 26, 2004) Post-Hearing
Memorandum of Law on Tribal Jurisdiction (NO. 503-CV-0690, NPM/DEP)

Town of Montezuma, New York, and County of Cayuga, New York, Defendants/
Counterclaim-Plaintiffs. George E. Pataki, as Governor of the State of New York

fendants/Counterclaim-Plaintiffs, The, 2004 WL 4000578, *4000578+ (Trial Mo-
tion, Memorandum and Affidavit) (N.D.N.Y. Mar 05, 2004) Memorandum of
Law Pursuant to the Court's ""Memoranda to all Parties'' Dated September
29, 2003 (NO. 503-CV-0690NPM/DEP)
1884 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ex rel, The Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe,
Plaintiff, v. PRESIDENT R.C. - ST. REGIS MANAGEMENT COMPANY and
Anderson-Blake Construction Corporation, Defendants., 2003 WL 24858549,
*24858549+ (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) (N.D.N.Y. Nov 12,
2003) Memorandum of Law in Support of Plaintiff's Motion to Quash Sub-
poena and for a Protective Order (NO. 02-CV-0845(TJM)(DEP))
Tribe, Plaintiff/, Counterclaim-Defendants, v. TOWN OF AURELIUS, New
York, Town of Montezuma, New York, and County of Cayuga, New York, De-
fendants/, Counterclaim-Plaintiffs, George E. Pataki, as Governor of the State of
New York and Eliot Spitzer, as Attorney General of the State of New York, Inter-
venors-, Defendants/, Counterclaim-Plaintiffs,, 2003 WL 24858624, *24858624
(Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) (N.D.N.Y. Sep 24, 2003) Memor-
andum of Law in Reply to the Intervenor-Defendant Cayuga Indian Nation
of New York's Opposition to the Tribe's Motion for A Preliminary Injunc-
tion (NO. 503-CV-0690NPM/DEP)
fendants/Counterclaim-Plaintiffs, The, 2003 WL 24858625, *24858625 (Trial
Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) (N.D.N.Y. Sep 24, 2003) Memorandum of
Law in Reply to the Intervenor-Defendant Cayuga Indian Nation of New
York's Opposition to the Tribe's Motion for A Preliminary Injunction (NO.
503-CV-0690NPM/DEP)
1887 SENECA-CAYUGA TRIBE OF OKLAHOMA, as federally recognized Indian
Tribe, Plaintiff/Counterclaim-Defendant, v. TOWN OF AURELIUS, New York,
and Eliot Spitzer, as Attorney General of the State of New York, Defendants/
Counterclaim-Plaintiffs., 2003 WL 24858615, *24858615 (Trial Motion, Memor-
andum and Affidavit) (N.D.N.Y. Aug 26, 2003) Memorandum of Law in Fur-
ther Support of Plaintiff's Motion for A Preliminary Injunction and in Op-
position to Defendants' Cross-Motion for A Preliminary Injunction (NO.
503-CV-0690NPM/DEP)
1888 TOWN OF AURELIUS, Plaintiff, v. SENECA-CAYUGA Tribe of Oklahoma,
Somerset Buidlers, Inc., and W.D. Malone Trucking & Excavating, Inc., Defend-
ants., 2003 WL 24858937, *24858937 (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affi-
davit) (N.D.N.Y. Aug 18, 2003) Memorandum of Law in Opposition to

Plaintiff's Motion to Remand and in Opposition to the Continuation of the
Ex Parte Temporary Restraining Order (NO. 503-CV-987NPM/DEP)
Tribe, Plaintiff/Counterclaim-Defendant, v. TOWN OF AURELIUS, New York,
Town of Montezuma, New York and County of Cayuga, New York, Defendants/
fendants/Counterclaim-Plaintiffs, The, 2003 WL 24858917, *24858917+ (Trial
Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) (N.D.N.Y. 2003) Post-Hearing Memor-
andum of Law of the Town of Aurelius, New York, Town of Montezuma,
New York, County of Cayuga, New York, Elliot Spitzer, as Attorney Genral
of the State of New York, and Governor ... (NO. 03-CV-0690, NPM/DEP)
1890 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. Larry MILLER; Robert J.
Tavano, Sr.; Lewis Tavano; Nick Miller; Victoria Glines; Tim Glines; Richard
Rancati; Doron Yakir; John Fountain, a/k/a ""chick""; Rex Seitz; Fabian Hart;
Gail Hart; Loran Thompson; Charles White, a/k/a ""Buck;"" Larry Thompson, a/
k/a Lt; Dana Leigh Thompson, a/k/a Dana Leigh Bush; Sheila Loran; David
Mainville; Anthony Laughing; Robert Browning; and L. David Jacobs, Defend-
ants., 1997 WL 34657647, *34657647+ (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affi-
davit) (N.D.N.Y. 1997) Memoranda of Law, I. Through XVI., In Support of
Defendants Robert J. Tavano, Sr., and Lewis Tavano's Joint Omnibus Pre-
trial Motion (NO. 97-CR-199, RSP) HN: 21 (S.Ct.)
1891 THE AUTHORS GUILD, INC., Association of American Publishers, Inc., et al.,
Plaintiffs, v. GOOGLE INC., Defendant., 2010 WL 563058, *563058+ (Trial
Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) (S.D.N.Y. Feb 11, 2010) Plaintiffs' Sup-
plemental Memorandum Responding to Specific Objections (NO. 05CV8136,
DC) " HN: 10,11 (S.Ct.)
1892 UNKECHAUGE INDIAN NATION, Plaintiff, v. David A. PATERSON, Gov-
ernor of the State of New York; Jamie Woodward, Acting Commissioner, New
York State Department of Taxation and Finance; William Comiskey, Deputy
Commissioner, Office of Tax Enforcement, New York State Department of Taxa-
tion and Finance; John Melville, Acting Superintendent, New York State Police,
each in his or her official capacity, Defendants. St. Regis Mohawk Tribe,
Plaintiff, v., 2010 WL 5675956, *5675956 (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Af-
fidavit) (W.D.N.Y. Oct 22, 2010) Plaintiff St. Regis Mohawk Tribe's Supple-
mental Brief on Request for Preliminary Injunction (NO. 10-CV-711A,
10-CV-811A)
1893 SENECA NATION OF INDIANS, Plaintiff, v. David PATERSON, Governor of
the State of New York, Jamie Woodward, Acting Commissioner, New York State
Department of Taxation and Finance, William Comiskey, Deputy Commissioner,
Office of Tax Enforcement, New York State Department of Taxation and Fin-
ance, John Melville, Acting Superintendent, New York State Police, each in his
or her official capacity, Defendants., 2010 WL 3559699, *3559699 (Trial Mo-
tion, Memorandum and Affidavit) (W.D.N.Y. Aug 20, 2010) Memorandum of

Law in Support of Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunction (NO.
10-CV-00687-RJA) " HN: 2 (S.Ct.)
1894 A. HARRIS & Associates, LLC, Plaintiff, v. Eliot SPITZER, Andrew S. Eristoff,
Antonia C. Novello, M.D. Defendants., 2006 WL 1151168, *1151168+ (Trial
Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) (W.D.N.Y. Mar 06, 2006) Plaintiff's
Memorandum of Law (NO. 606-CV-06137-CJS) " HN: 20 (S.Ct.)
1895 Dennis J. BOWEN Sr., individually and as President of the Seneca Nation of In-
dians, Plaintiff, v. Vincent E. DOYLE Justice, New York State Supreme Court
County of Erie, Penny M. Wolfgang, Justice, New York State Supreme Court
County of Erie, Defendants., 1995 WL 17816042, *17816042+ (Trial Motion,
Memorandum and Affidavit) (W.D.N.Y. Feb 06, 1995) Plaintiffs' Memor-
andum in Support of Motion for Preliminary Injunction (NO. 95-CV-43A)
1896 M.S., Plaintiff, v. Richard CORDRAY, Ohio Attorney General, Defendant., 2009
WL 5057182, *5057182 (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) (S.D.Ohio
Jul 16, 2009) Defendant Ohio Attorney General Richard Cordray's Reply in
Support of Motion for Summary Judgment (NO. 18-CV-00427) " HN:
30,31 (S.Ct.)
1897 G.B., Plaintiff, v. Richard CORDRAY, Ohio Attorney General, Defendant., 2009
WL 5057185, *5057185 (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) (S.D.Ohio
Jul 15, 2009) Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (NO. 18-CV-00437)
" HN: 30,31 (S.Ct.)
1898 Scott B. MAYBEE, Plaintiff, v. Richard A. LEVIN, et al., Defendants., 2009 WL
1971117, *1971117+ (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) (S.D.Ohio May
26, 2009) Plaintiff's Memorandum in Opposition to Defendants' Motion to
Dismiss and Plaintiff's Cross-Motion for A Preliminary Injunction (NO.
309-CV-3) HN: 30 (S.Ct.)
1899 Scott B. MAYBEE, Plaintiff, v. Richard A. LEVIN, et al., Defendants., 2009 WL
22, 2009) Plaintiff's Memorandum in Opposition to Defendants' Motion to
Dismiss and Plaintiff's Cross-Motion for A Preliminary Injunction (NO.
309-CV-3) HN: 30 (S.Ct.)
1900 In Re: MRA NATIONAL CENTURY FINANCIAL ENTERPRISES, INC. City
of Chandler, et al., v. Bank One, N.A., et al., State of Arizona, et al. v. Credit
Suisse First Boston Corp., et al., Crown Cork & Seal Company, Inc. Master Re-
tirement Trust, et al., v. Credit Suisse First Boston Corp., et al., 2004 WL
03, 2004) Arizona Noteholder Plaintiffs' Consolidated Master Brief in Re-
sponse and Opposition to All Motions to Dismiss their Claims (NO.
203-MD-1565-JLGCV03-) " HN: 30,31 (S.Ct.)
1901 In Re: MRA NATIONAL CENTURY FINANCIAL ENTERPRISES, INC. City
of Chandler, et al., v. Bank one, N.A., et al., State of Arizona, et al. v. Credit
Suisse First Boston Corp., et al., Crown Cork & Seal Company, Inc. Master Re-

tirement Trust, et al., v. Credit Suisse First Boston Corp., Et Al., 2004 WL
03, 2004) Arizona Noteholder Plaintiffs' Consolidated Master Brief in Re-
sponse and Opposition to All Motions to Dismiss Their Claims (NO.
203-MD-1565-JLG) " HN: 30,31 (S.Ct.)
1902 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ex rel., Robert D. Jack, Plaintiff/Relator, v.
MUSCOGEE (CREEK) NATION OF OKLAHOMA, and Housing Authority of
the Creek Nation of Oklahoma, Inc., Defendants., 2008 WL 751013, *751013
(Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) (E.D.Okla. Jan 15, 2008) Motion to
Dismiss and Brief in Support (NO. 607CV0000421) " HN: 20 (S.Ct.)
1903 CITY OF HUGO, OKLAHOMA, an Oklahoma Municipality, and Hugo Muni-
cipal Authority, an Oklahoma Public Water Trust for the benefit of the City of
Hugo, Oklahoma, Plaintiffs, City of Irving, Texas, Intervenor - Plaintiff, v. Jess
Mark NICHOLS, et al., in their official capacities as members of the Oklahoma
Water Resources Board and the Oklahoma Water Conservation Storage Commis-
sion, Defendants., 2008 WL 7328645, *7328645+ (Trial Motion, Memorandum
and Affidavit) (E.D.Okla. 2008) Defendants' Response to Supplemental Joint
Motion of Plaintiffs City of Hugo and Hugo Municipal Authority, and Inter-
venor-Plaintiff City of Irving for Summary Judgment (NO. CIV-
08-303-RAW) HN: 31 (S.Ct.)
1904 CITY OF HUGO, OKLAHOMA, an Oklahoma Municipality, and Hugo Muni-
cipal Authority, an Oklahoma Public Water Trust for the benefit of the City of
Hugo, Oklahoma, Plaintiffs, City of Irving, Texas, Intervenor - Plaintiff, v. Jess
Mark NICHOLS, et al., in their official capacities as members of the Oklahoma
Water Resources Board and the Oklahoma Water Conservation Storage Commis-
sion, Defendants., 2008 WL 7328646, *7328646+ (Trial Motion, Memorandum
and Affidavit) (E.D.Okla. 2008) Defendants' Cross-Motion for Summary
Judgment and Brief in Support (NO. CIV-08-303-RAW) HN: 31 (S.Ct.)
1905 THE QUAPAW TRIBE OF OKLAHOMA (O-GAH-PAH) by and through its
Business Committee, and its Chairman John L. Berrey et al., Plaintiffs, v. BLUE
TEE CORP., et al., Defendants., 2010 WL 1809079, *1809079+ (Trial Motion,
Memorandum and Affidavit) (N.D.Okla. Jan 20, 2010) Plaintiffs' Response to
Defendants' Motion to Dismiss for Failure to Join Required Parties (NO.
03-CV-846-CVE-PJC) "
1906 MUSCOGEE (CREEK) NATION, a federally-recognized Tribe, and, Plaintiffs,
v. THE OKLAHOMA TAX COMMISSION; Thomas Kemp, Jr., Chairman of the
Tax Commission; Jerry Johnson, Vice-Chairman of the Tax Commission, and
Constance Irby, Secretary of the Tax Commission, Defendants., 2009 WL
5059529, *5059529 (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) (N.D.Okla. May
26, 2009) Plaintiff'S Supplemental Brief in Response to Court's Order for
Additional Authority (NO. 09-CV-285TCKTLW)
1907 State of Oklahoma, et al., Plaintiff, v. TYSON FOODS, INC., et al, Defendants.,
(N.D.Okla. Oct 31, 2008) Defendants' Motion to Dismiss for Failure to Join

the Cherokee Nation as an Required Party or, in the Alternative, Motion for
Judgment as a Matter of law Based on Lack of Standing (NO.
405-CV-00329-GKF-SAJ)
1908 Marilynn G. VANDEVER and Charles Vandever, Plaintiffs, v. OSAGE NATION
ENTERPRISE, INC. and Osage Nation, Defendants., 2006 WL 5245039,
*5245039+ (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) (N.D.Okla. Oct 30, 2006)
Reply Brief of Defendants Osage Nation and Osage Nation Enterprise, Inc.
in Support of the Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction or, in the Al-
ternative, to Abstain (NO. 06-CV-380-TCK-SAJ)
1909 Marvin SUMMERFIELD, Robin Mayes, and David Cornsilk, Plaintiffs, v. Mark
McCOLLOUGH, Rex Earl Starr, Jennie L. Battles, Lisa Finley, and Joe Byrd,
Affidavit) (N.D.Okla. Apr 22, 1999) Special Appearance of Cherokee Nation
and Response to Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel and Memorandum on Waiver
of Sovereign Immunity (NO. 98-CV-0328B, EA)
1910 Marvin SUMMERFIELD, Robin Mayes, and David Cornsilk, Plaintiffs, v. Mark
McCOLLOUGH, Rex Earl Starr, Jennie L. Battles, Lisa Finley, and Joe Byrd,
Affidavit) (N.D.Okla. Apr 07, 1999) Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel and Memor-
andum to the Court Regarding Waiver of Sovereign Immunity by the Cno
(NO. 98-CV-0328B, EA)
1911 Tina Marie SOMERLOTT, Plaintiff, v. CHEROKEE NATION DISTRIBUTORS
INC., an Oklahoma Corporation, and CND, L.L.C., an Oklahoma Limited Liabil-
ity Company, Defendants., 2009 WL 5070808, *5070808 (Trial Motion, Memor-
andum and Affidavit) (W.D.Okla. Oct 27, 2009) Defendants' Reply to
Plaintiff's Response and Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Defendants'
Motion to Dismiss Amended Complaint (NO. CIV-08-429-D)
1912 Tina Marie SOMERLOTT, Plaintiff, v. CHEROKEE NATION DISTRIBUTORS
INC., An Oklahoma Corporation, and Cnd, L.L.C., An Oklahoma Limited Liabil-
andum and Affidavit) (W.D.Okla. Jun 23, 2009) Brief in Support of Defend-
ants' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Amended Complaint Pursuant to
Fed.R.civ.P. 12(b)(1) (NO. 508CV00429) " HN: 20 (S.Ct.)
1913 CHEYENNE and Arapaho Tribes, federally recognized Indian Tribes, Plaintiffs,
v. Brad HENRY, Governor of the State of Oklahoma; Scott Meacham, Treasurer
of the State of Oklahoma; Thomas Kemp, Jr., Chairman of the Oklahoma Tax
Commission; Jerry Johnson, Vice-Chairman of the Oklahoma Tax Commission;
Constance Irby, Secretary-Member of the Oklahoma Tax Commission, Defend-
ants., 2009 WL 1707706, *1707706+ (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit)
(W.D.Okla. Mar 20, 2009) Response to Motion to Dismiss (NO. 508CV01393)
HN: 19 (S.Ct.)
1914 CORY INVESTMENTS, LTD., Plaintiff, v. MULTIMEDIA GAMES, INC.,
Robert F. (Skip) Lannert, Gordon Graves, Clifton Lind, Video Gaming Technolo-

gies, Inc., Jon Yarbrough, John Marley, Worldwide Gaming Technologies, AGS,
LLC d/b/a American Gaming Systems, AGS Partners, LLC, Ronald Clapper, Si-
erra Design Group, and, Bally Technologies, Inc., Defendant., 2008 WL
6966562, *6966562 (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) (W.D.Okla. Aug
27, 2008) Defendants Multimedia Games, Inc.'s, Robert F. (""Skip'') Lan-
nert's, Gordon Graves' and Clifton Lind's Motion to Dismiss and Supporting
Brief (NO. 08-CV-00870-R)
1915 The SAC AND FOX NATION, Plaintiff, v. Gale NORTON, as the Secretary of
the Department of the Interior of the United States of America, Defendant., 2005
WL 3981963, *3981963 (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) (W.D.Okla.
2005) Brief in Support of Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgement (NO.
CIV-05-1234-R)
1916 (1) MAGNUM HUNTER RESOURCES, INC., (2) Teal Hunter L.P., and (3)
Gruy Petroleum Management CO., Plaintiffs, v. (1) THE APACHE TRIBE OF
OKLAHOMA, (2) the Apache Tribal TAX Commission of the Apache Tribe of
Oklahoma, (3) Emily Saupitty, and (4) Dennis G. Chappabitty, Defendants., 2004
WL 4006249, *4006249 (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) (W.D.Okla.
Sep 17, 2004) Defendant Emily Saupitty's Motion to Dismiss and Brief in
Support (NO. CIV-04-203-M)
1917 MAGNUM HUNTER RESOURCES, INC., Teal Hunter L.P., and Gruy Petro-
leum Management Co., Plaintiffs, v. THE APACHE TRIBE OF OKLAHOMA;
the Apache Tribal Tax Commission of the Apache Tribe of Oklahoma; Emily
Saupitty; and Dennis G. Chappabitty, Defendants., 2004 WL 4006246,
*4006246+ (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) (W.D.Okla. Jul 26, 2004)
Brief in Support of Motion to Dismiss on Behalf of Defendant Dennis G.
Chappabitty (NO. CIV-04-203-M)
1918 MAGNUM HUNTER RESOURCES, INC., Teal Hunter L.P. and Gruy Petro-
leum Management Co., Plaintiffs, v. THE APACHE TRIBE OF OKLAHOMA,
the Apache Tribal Tax Commission of the Apache Tribe of Oklahoma; and Emily
Saupitty, Defendants., 2004 WL 4006241, *4006241+ (Trial Motion, Memor-
andum and Affidavit) (W.D.Okla. Apr 26, 2004) Plaintiffs' Response to De-
fendants Apache Tribe of Oklahoma and Apache Tribal Tax Commission's
Motion to Dismiss With Brief in Support (NO. CIV-04-0203-M)
1919 (1) MAGNUM HUNTER RESOURCES, INC.; (2) Teal Hunter L.P.; and (3)
Gruy Petroleum Management Co., Plaintiff, v. (1) THE APACHE TRIBE OF
OKLAHOMA; (2) the Apache Tribal Tax Commission of the Apache Tribe Tribe
of Oklahoma; and (3) Emily Saupitty, Defendants., 2004 WL 4006235,
*4006235+ (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) (W.D.Okla. Apr 08,
2004) Motion to Dismiss Defendants the Apache Tribe of Oklahoma and the
Apache Tribal Tax Commission (NO. CIV-04-203-M)
1920 ONRC ACTION, Plaintiff, v. BUREAU OF RECLAMATION, et al., Defend-
ants, Klamath Basin Water Users Prot. Assn., et al., Defendant-Intervenors., 2010
WL 4787637, *4787637 (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) (D.Or. Jul
21, 2010) Defendant Bureau of Reclamation's Reply in Support of Motion for

Summary Judgment (NO. 97-3090-CL) HN: 21 (S.Ct.)
1921 THE CITY OF NORTH BEND, an Oregon Municipal Corporation, Plaintiff, v
COQUILLE INDIAN TRIBE OF OREGON and Coquille Economic Develop-
ment Corporation, Defendants., 2009 WL 5193745, *5193745+ (Trial Motion,
Memorandum and Affidavit) (D.Or. Oct 09, 2009) Defendant Coquille Indian
Tribe's Legal Memorandum in Support of Motion to Dismiss (NO.
609CV06273) "
1922 TIME WARNER TELECOM OF OREGON, LLC, and Qwest Communications
Corporation, Plaintiffs, v. THE CITY OF PORTLAND, Defendant; Qwest Cor-
poration, Plaintiff, v. The City of Portland, Defendant., 2006 WL 1904215,
*1904215+ (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) (D.Or. Jan 09, 2006)
City's Reply in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment (NO.
CV04-1393-PA, LEAD)
1923 PENNSY SUPPLY, INC., Plaintiff, v. THE SUSQUEHANNA RIVER BASIN
COMMISSION, Defendant., 2007 WL 522621, *522621+ (Trial Motion, Memor-
andum and Affidavit) (M.D.Pa. Jan 12, 2007) Brief of Defendant, the Susque-
hanna River Basin Commission, in Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for A
Preliminary Injunction (NO. 106-CV-2454)
1924 Janis SCHMIDT, Plaintiff, v. CECELIA FIRE THUNDER, et al., Defendants.,
(D.S.D. Mar 03, 2006) Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of
Motion to Dismiss (NO. 05-5097-KES)
1925 Dennis and Diane EAGLEHORSE, Plaintiffs, v. Julian H. BROWN, Individually
and in his official capacity as Tribal Attorney for the Lower Brule Sioux Tribe,
Defendant., 2003 WL 23808165, *23808165 (Trial Motion, Memorandum and
Affidavit) (D.S.D. Oct 31, 2003) Defendant's Brief in Support of Defendant's
Motion for Summary Judgment (NO. 03-3025)
1926 CHRISTIAN CHILDREN'S FUND, INC., A Non-Profit Virginia Corporation,
Plaintiff, v. CROW CREEK SIOUX TRIBAL COURT, the Honorable Douglas
N. Papendick, Present Tribunal Judge; and Hunkpati Project Parent Advisory
Council, Inc., a Non-Profit South Dakota Corporation, Defendants., 1999 WL
33982279, *33982279 (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) (D.S.D. Dec
20, 1999) Reply Brief in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment (NO.
99-3008)
1927 CHRISTIAN CHILDREN'S FUND, INC., A Non-Profit Virginia Corporation,
Plaintiff, CROW CREEK SIOUX TRIBAL COURT, the Honorable Douglas N.
Papendick, Present Tribunal Judge; and Hunkpati Project Parent Advisory Coun-
cil, Inc., a Non-Profit South Dakota Corporation, Defendants., 1999 WL
33982277, *33982277 (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) (D.S.D. Dec
03, 1999) Brief in Support of Christian Children's Fund, Inc.'s Motion for
Summary Judgment (NO. 99-3008) HN: 8 (S.Ct.)
1928 James N. DANIELSON, and Micheal W. Christensen, both d/b/a Black Hills
Health Care Consultants, Plaintiffs, v. Donald B. BAD MOCCASIN, Aberdeen

Area Director of the Indian Health Service; Archie Clifford, Contracting Officer,
Aberdeen Area Office of The Indian Health Service; the Indian Health Services,
Aberdeen Area Office, Public Health Services, Department of Health and Human
Services; Marlin Weston, Chairman of the Health and Humans Services, 1999
WL 33982266, *33982266 (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) (D.S.D.
Feb 22, 1999) Memorandum in Support of Defendants Motion to Dismiss
(NO. 98CV05120)
1929 Ms. Sara Lee GOFF, d/b/a Sara's Secret / Condoms to Go, Movant, v. Mr. Jeffery
BICKERSTAFF, In his official capacity as the Chief Building Inspector for The
City of Murphy, Texas Mr. Mike Gaiter, In his official capacity as the Building
Inspection Administrator for The City of Garland, Texas Mr. Denny Denman, In
his official capacity as the Chief Building Inspector for the City of Rowlett,
Texas, Respondents., 2008 WL 7323744, *7323744 (Trial Motion, Memorandum
and Affidavit) (N.D.Tex. Oct 03, 2008) Response to the City of Garland (NO.
308-CV-1660-L)
1930 DUNN-MCCAMPBELL ROYALTY INTEREST, INC., et al., Plaintiffs, v. NA-
TIONAL PARK SERVICE, et al., Defendants., 2006 WL 2503978, *2503978
(Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) (S.D.Tex. Jul 28, 2006) Defendants'
Motion for Summary Judgment (NO. V-06-00059)
1931 CITY OF MCALLEN, Texas, v. AMERICAN TELEPHONE & Telegraph Com-
pany; City of McAllen, Texas, v. Alestra S. De R.L. De C.V., 2006 WL 1759427,
*1759427 (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) (S.D.Tex. May 24, 2006)
Plaintiff's Reply to Defendants' Supplemental Brief in Support of Defend-
ants' Amended Motion for Summary Judgment (NO. M-02-404, M-03-407)
1932 CITY OF MCALLEN, Texas, v. AMERICAN TELEPHONE & TELEGRAPH

COMPANY; City of McAllen, Texas, v. Alestra S. De R.L. De C.V., 2005 WL
3133077, *3133077 (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) (S.D.Tex. Oct
21, 2005) Plaintiff's Response to Defendants' Renewed Motion for Summary
Judgment (NO. M-02-404, M-03-407)
1933 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. QUESTAR GAS MANAGE-
MENT COMPANY, Defendant., 2009 WL 1554555, *1554555 (Trial Motion,
Memorandum and Affidavit) (D.Utah Apr 10, 2009) Memorandum in Support
of United States' Motion for a Protective Order Limiting Deposition Discov-
ery (NO. 08-CV-00167-DAK) " HN: 19,21 (S.Ct.)
1934 Donna SINGER, Fred Riggs, Al Dickson, v. SAN JUAN COUNTY, San Juan
Health Services District, Commissioner J. Tyron Lewis, Rick Bailey; Bill Redd,
Craig Halls; Commissioner Lynn Stevens (official capacity only); Commissioner
Manuel Morgan (Navajo member) (official capacity only); Reid Wood, Roger At-
ticity (Navajo Member), John Lewis, Karen Adams, Truck Insurance; Nettie
Prack (official Capacity only); Glen Imel (official capacity Only); John, 2008 WL
2149100, *2149100 (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) (D.Utah Apr 17,
2008) Plaintiffs' response to Truck's joiner motion renewing the Def's mo-
tion to enjoin and reply to all Defendants' responses, and joiners, dkt. no.

959, 960, 966, 971, 974, 976 based on lack of subject ... (NO. 200CV0584)
1935 Fred RIGGS, Donna Singer, Al Dickson, Plaintiffs, v. SAN JUAN COUNTY,
San Juan Health Services District, Commissioner J. Tyron Lewis, Rick Bailey;
Bill Redd, Craig Halls; Commissioner Lyn Stevens (official capacity only); Com-
missioner Manuel Morgan (Navajo member) (official capacity only); Reid Wood,
Roger Atticity (Navajo Member), John Lewis, Karen Adams, Truck Insurance;
Nettie Prack (official Capacity only); Glen Imel (official capacity Only); John,
(D.Utah Dec 12, 2003) Memorandum of Law in Support of the Motion for an
Order of Remand to Navajo Court or in the Alternative an Order Allowing
Plaintiffs to Withdraw Their Complaint for Enforcement of Navajo of
Navajo ... (NO. 00CV00584) "
1936 SHIVWITS BAND OF PAIUTE INDIANS, Kunz & Company, d/b/a Kunz Out-
door Advertising, a California Corporation, Plaintiffs and Counterclaim Defend-
ants, v. STATE OF UTAH; Utah State Department of Transportation; and St.
George, a Utah Municipal Corporation, Defendants and Counterclaim and Third-
Party Plaintiffs. v. Gayle Norton, in her capacity as Secretary of the United States
Department of the Interior, Neal McCaleb, in his capacity as Assistant Secretary
of the Interior, 2002 WL 33768793, *33768793 (Trial Motion, Memorandum and
Affidavit) (D.Utah Sep 13, 2002) Joint Memorandum in Opposition to State
Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (NO. 295CV1025C)
1937 'NATO INDIAN NATION;, Plaintiff, v. THE STATE OF UTAH;, Defendants.,
(D.Utah Nov 20, 2001) Memorandum in Support of Response to Special Ap-
pearance, Motion to Quash Service of Process and Motion to Dismiss (NO.
201-CV-802)
1938 Mary MEYER and Kenneth Hackford, Plaintiffs, v. THE UTE INDIAN TRIBE
OF THE UINTAH and Ouray Reservation, Utah, Defendant., 2001 WL
35672580, *35672580+ (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) (D.Utah Nov
02, 2001) Reply Memorandum in Support of Motion to Dismiss and in Op-
position to Plaintiffs' Application for A Preliminary Injunction (NO.
201CV-0546C)
1939 UINTAH COUNTY, a political subdivision of the State of Utah, Ute Indian
Tribe, a Federally recognized Indian Tribe, Lynn I. Siddoway, an individual,
Dean Chew, an individual, Alameda Corporation, a Delaware corporation, and
Morapas Creek Sheep Company, a sole proprietorship owned by Oscar S. Wyatt,
Jr., Plaintiffs, v. Bruce R. BABBITT, United States Department of the Interior, in
his capacity as Secretary of the Interior, Thomas Fry III, Acting, 2000 WL
35431283, *35431283 (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) (D.Utah Jun
22, 2000) Ute Indian Tribe's Memorandum in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion
for Injunctive Relief and Writ of Mandamus Relating to the Sixth Claim for
Relief and the Seventh Claim for Relief (NO. 200CV-0482J)
1940 GREEN MOUNTAIN CHRYSLER PLYMOUTH DODGE JEEP, et al., v.
George CROMBIE, et al., 2006 WL 4763130, *4763130+ (Trial Motion, Memor-

andum and Affidavit) (D.Vt. Nov 13, 2006) Defendants' and Defendant-Inter-
venors' Consolidated Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings and Memor-
andum of Law in Support (NO. 205-CV-302, 205-CV-304)
1941 Elaine L. CHAO, Secretary of Labor, United States Department of Labor, Peti-
tioner, v. THE SPOKANE TRIBE OF INDIANS, Respondent., 2008 WL 824161,
*824161+ (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) (E.D.Wash. Jan 14, 2008)
Supplemental Briefing (NO. 207CV00354)
1942 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Plaintiff, v. Lyle W. CONWAY, Defendant.,
(E.D.Wash. Mar 02, 2005) Defendant's Memorandum in Support of Dismissal
of All Counts (NO. CR-04-2129-RHW)
1943 Nick MATHESON, Plaintiff, v. L. A. NELSON, INC., d/b/a Burke's Distributing,
and Blacksheep Distributing, Inc., Defendants., 2004 WL 2646734, *2646734
(Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) (E.D.Wash. Apr 06, 2004) Memor-
andum in Support of Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (NO. CV-04-0072-LRS)
1944 THE STILLAGUAMISH TRIBE OF INDIANS, a federally-recognized Indian

tribe, Plaintiff, v. PILCHUCK GROUP II, L.L.C., a Washington Limited Liabil-
andum and Affidavit) (W.D.Wash. Jun 24, 2010) Motion for Preliminary In-
junction Enjoining Arbitration (NO. C10-995RAJ) " HN: 20 (S.Ct.)
1945 Amber LANPHERE and Paul M. Matheson, Individually, and on behalf of others
similarly situated;, Plaintiffs, v. Chad WRIGHT, Puyallup Tribe Tax Department,
Enforcement Officer, and the Puyallup Indian Tribe; a recognized American Indi-
an Tribe;, Defendants., 2009 WL 5016413, *5016413 (Trial Motion, Memor-
andum and Affidavit) (W.D.Wash. Sep 11, 2009) Plaintiffs' Response to De-
fendants' Motion to Dismiss or in the Alternative for Summary Judgment
(NO. 309-CV-05462-BHS)
1946 Amber LANPHERE, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Chad WRIGHT and the Puyallup Tribe
of Indians, Defendants., 2009 WL 5016412, *5016412+ (Trial Motion, Memor-
andum and Affidavit) (W.D.Wash. Sep 02, 2009) Defendants' Motion to Dis-
miss or in the Alternative for Summary Judgment and Memorandum of Au-
thorities in Support Thereof (NO. C095462BHS) " HN: 7,9 (S.Ct.)
1947 NISQUALLY INDIAN TRIBE, Plaintiff, v. Christine GREGOIRE, et al., De-
davit) (W.D.Wash. Apr 20, 2009) Defendant Christine Gregoire's Opposition
to Plaintiff's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (NO. 308CV05069)
HN: 8 (S.Ct.)
1948 NISQUALLY INDIAN TRIBE, Plaintiffs, v. Christine GREGOIRE, et al., De-
davit) (W.D.Wash. Mar 27, 2009) Defendant Lopeman's Motion for Summary
Judgment and Memorandum in Support Thereof (NO. 308CV05069)
HN: 1 (S.Ct.)

1949 Bill T. SWEET, Carolyn Lubenau, Sharon Frelinger, Marilee Mai, Vyonda Rose,
Lois Sweet Dorman, Linda Sweet Baxter, Ben Sweet, and Charles Chuck Wil-
loughby, Petitioners, v. Maryanne HINZMAN, Arlene Ventura, Margaret Mullen,
Katherne M. Barker, Frances De Los Angeles, Robert Hinzman, Nina Repin,
Kanium Ventura, Jo-Anne Domnick, Jerry Enick, Nathan Pat Barker, and Staci
Moses, in their official capacities as the Snoqualmie Indian Tribal Council, Re-
spondents., 2008 WL 7195732, *7195732 (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affi-
davit) (W.D.Wash. Jun 17, 2008) Motion to Dismiss for Failure to Join an In-
dispensable Party (NO. CV-00844JLR)
1950 SKAGIT COUNTY, Washington, a municipal corporation, Plaintiff, v. NOAA
FISHERIES, et al., Defendants., 2005 WL 6173884, *6173884 (Trial Motion,
Memorandum and Affidavit) (W.D.Wash. Jun 23, 2005) Defendant Swinomish
Indian Tribal Community's Motion to Dismiss (NO. 205CV00267) HN: 34
(S.Ct.)
1951 RURAL OLYMPIC VIEW PROPERTY, LLC, a Washington limited liability
company; G.A. Powell Construction, Inc., a Washington corporation; J.W. Wells
Construction, Inc., a Washington corporation; Jensen Construction, Inc., a Wash-
ington corporation; Rasmussen Const. Inc., a Washington corporation; Avalon
Construction, Inc., a Washington corporation; Donald and Sara Hay, a married
couple; and John and Kristen Forsythe, a married couple; Sharon Goodwin, a
single person, Plaintiffs,, 2004 WL 4002939, *4002939 (Trial Motion, Memor-
andum and Affidavit) (W.D.Wash. Feb 24, 2004) Plaintiffs' Motion for Prelim-
inary Injunction (NO. CV04-0216Z)
1952 ASSOCIATION OF PROPERTY OWNERS/RESIDENTS OF PORT MADISON
AREA (APORPMA), et al, Plaintiffs, v. INDIVIDUAL COUNCIL MEMBERS
OF THE SUQUAMISH TRIBAL COUNCIL, the Unitd States Department of the
Interior, the Unitd States Environmental Protection Agency, and the United
States Department of Housing and Urban Renewal, Defendants., 2002 WL
33777116, *33777116 (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) (W.D.Wash.
Mar 19, 2002) Plaintiffs' Sur-Reply to Federal Defendants' Reply (NO.
C01-5317FDB)
1953 David E BARNETT, and Kristine E Barnett, and John R Barnett, Plaintiffs, v.
Pearl Capoeman BALLER, and Quinault Indin Nation, and Quinault Tribal
Court, Defendants., 2001 WL 36092395, *36092395 (Trial Motion, Memor-
andum and Affidavit) (W.D.Wash. Dec 07, 2001) Quinault Tribal Court Reply
to Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment (NO. C01-5291RJB)
1954 Ralph KOOPMAN, Plaintiff, v. FOREST COUNTY POTAWATOMI MEMBER
BENEFIT PLAN, Forest County Potawatomi Community of Wisconsin, a Sover-
eign Indian Nation, Chairman Harold Frank, and Attorney General Jeff Crawford,
Defendants., 2006 WL 730765, *730765 (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affi-
davit) (E.D.Wis. Feb 10, 2006) Brief in Opposition to Motion for Temporary
Restraining Order (NO. 06-C-0163)
1955 NORTHERN ARAPAHO TRIBE, Plaintiff, v. State of Wyoming and Governor
James Geringer, his agents, employees and successors, in their official capacities,

Affidavit) (D.Wyo. Jan 11, 2001) Plaintiff's Brief in Support of Motion for
Judgment on the Pleadings (NO. 00CV221-J)
1956 HADDON HOUSING ASSOCIATES, LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, et al.,
Plaintiffs, v. THE UNITED STATES, Defendant., 2009 WL 4875945,
*4875945+ (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) (Fed.Cl. Dec 04, 2009)
Defendant's Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment and
Cross-motion for Summary Judgment (NO. 07-646C) HN: 21 (S.Ct.)
1957 AMBER RESOURCES COMPANY, et al., Plaintiffs, v. THE UNITED
STATES, Defendant., 2004 WL 5411644, *5411644 (Trial Motion, Memor-
andum and Affidavit) (Fed.Cl. Dec 20, 2004) Defendant's Reply Brief in Sup-
port of Its Re-stated Motion to Dismiss, or, in the Alternative, Cross-Motion
for Summary Judgment (NO. 02-30C)
1958 AMBER RESOURCES CO., et al., Plaintiffs, v. THE UNITED STATES, De-
davit) (Fed.Cl. Oct 15, 2004) Defendant's Re-Stated Motion to Dismiss, Op-
position to Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment as to Liability and
Partial Summary Judgment as to Damages, and, in the Alternative, Cross-
Motion for ... (NO. 02-30C)
1959 Carol FLETCHER, Retha Colcough, Betty Clark, Thomas Polydorus, Leo H.
Headrick, William O. Parker, and Preferred Heath Alliance, Inc. on behalf of
themselves and all other similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. BROOKE GROUP,
LTD., Liggett Group, Inc. and Liggett & Meyers, Inc., Defendants., 1999 WL
33748762, *33748762 (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) (Ala.Cir.Ct.
Mar 01, 1999) Notice of Objections to the Proposed Settlement Class and
Amended Class Settlement Agreement (NO. 97-913) HN: 5,8,10 (S.Ct.)
1960 THE STATE OF ALASKA, Plaintiff, v. BP EXPLORATION (ALASKA) INC.,
a Delaware Corporation, Defendant., 2010 WL 5474102, *5474102 (Trial Mo-
tion, Memorandum and Affidavit) (Alaska Super. Aug 17, 2010) Defendant's
Memorandum in Support of Motion to Strike Tax Claims (NO.
3AN-09-06181CI) HN: 1,2 (S.Ct.)
1961 Lydia A. BONNETTE, et al, v. TUNICA-BILOXI INDIANS OF LOUISIANA d/
b/a Paragon Casino Resort, et al., 2002 WL 34456065, *34456065+ (Trial Mo-
tion, Memorandum and Affidavit) (La.Dist.Ct. Nov 01, 2002) Memorandum in
Support of Declinatory Exception of Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction
(NO. 2002-2905) HN: 2 (S.Ct.)
1962 Patrick PATTERSON and Susan Patterson, husband and wife, Plaintiffs, v.
Gregory Bryan CABALA, Robert Trevino, and Saginaw Chippewa Indian Tribe
of Michigan, d/b/a the Soaring Eagle Casino, jointly And severally, Defendants.,
(Mich.Cir.Ct. Sep 17, 2004) Defendant Saginaw Chippewa Indian Tribe of
Michigan, d/b/a Soaring Eagle Casino & Resort's Brief in Support of Its Mo-
tion for Summary Disposition (NO. 04-3358-NS-S)

1963 State of Minnesota, Plaintiff, v. Joel Anthony ROY, Defendant., 2007 WL
6476319, *6476319 (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) (Minn.Dist.Ct.
May 31, 2007) Supplemental Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion to
Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction (NO. 04-K1-06-1026)
1964 State of Minnesota, Plaintiff, v. Joel Anthony ROY, Defendant., 2007 WL
7141627, *7141627 (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) (Minn.Dist.Ct.
May 31, 2007) Supplemental Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion to
Dismiss For Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction (NO. 04-K1-06-1026)
1965 Jane DOE, by and through her parents and next friend, J.H., Plaintiff, v. Santa
Clara PUEBLO, d/b/a Big Rock Casino, Steven Bird, Miguel Ortigoza, Timothy
Ortigoza and Emily Ortigoza, Defendants., 2004 WL 4072224, *4072224 (Trial
Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) (N.M. Dist. May 10, 2004) Defendant
Santa Clara's Reply to Plaintiff's Response to Santa Clara's Motion to Dis-
miss (NO. D-101-CV-2004-00406) HN: 1 (S.Ct.)
Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) (N.M. Dist. Apr 12, 2004) Memorandum
of Law In Opposition to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject
Matter Jurisdiction (NO. D-101-CV-2004-00406)
Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) (N.M. Dist. Mar 11, 2004) Memorandum
of Law in Support of Defendant Santa Clara's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of
Subject Matter Jurisdiction (NO. D-101-CV-2004-00406)
1968 VELIE AND VELIE, P.L.L.C., Plaintiff, v. THE UNITED KEETOOWAH
BAND OF CHEROKEE INDIANS OF OKLAHOMA, Defendant., 2010 WL
1423002, *1423002 (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) (Okl.Dist. Mar
05, 2010) Defendant's Trial Brief (NO. CJ-07-498)
1969 Shayne ABEGG, by and through his Court-appointed guardian, Jeanne Marie
Clavere, Plaintiff, v. State of Washington, DSHS; Grayson Associates, a Wash-
ington corporation; and Brad Simkins, Defendants., 2009 WL 2142880,
*2142880 (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) (Wash.Super. Feb 09,
2009) Defendant Grayson Associates' Opposition to Motion to Dismiss Cer-
tain Claims Against Defendant Brad Simkins (NO. 08-2-04108-3)
1970 Karl O. SMALE and Heather Smale, Plaintiffs, v. NORETEP, a Washington
State general partnership; Ronald Schultz and Jane Doe Shultz; Peter J. Poschel
and Jane Doe Poeschel; Stillaguamish Tribe of Indians, Defendants., 2008 WL
8088098, *8088098 (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) (Wash.Super.
May 14, 2008) Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Tribe's
Motion to Dismiss (NO. 07-2-04476-9) HN: 20 (S.Ct.)
1971 Elaine WILLMAN and the Citizens Standup! Committee, Plaintiffs, v. WASH-

ural Gas Corporation and PacifiCorp, d/b/a Pacific Power and Light Company,
Affidavit) (Wash.Super. Aug 06, 2003) Plaintiffs' Reply Memorandum in Sup-
port of Summary Judgment on Plaintiffs' Alternative Claim for Relief (NO.
03-2-000867)
ural Gas Corporation and Pacificorp, d/b/a Pacific Power and Light Company,
Defendants., 2003 WL 25269135, *25269135+ (Trial Motion, Memorandum and
Affidavit) (Wash.Super. Jul 15, 2003) Response of the Washington Utilities
and Transportation Commission to Motions for Reconsideration of
Plaintiffs, Cascade Natural Gas Corporation, and Pacificorp (NO.
03-2-00086-7)
Affidavit) (Wash.Super. May 29, 2003) Plaintiffs' Answer to Yakama Nation's
Amicus Memorandum (NO. 03-2-00086-7)
INGTON UTILITIES AND TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION; Cascade Nat-
ural Gas Corporation; and PacifiCorp, dba Pacific Power and Light Company,
Affidavit) (Wash.Super. May 09, 2003) PacifiCorp's Reply in Support of Mo-
tion for Summary Judgment%n1%n (NO. 03-2-00086-7)
Affidavit) (Wash.Super. May 08, 2003) Reply Memorandum in Support of
Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment (NO. 03-2-000867)
Affidavit) (Wash.Super. May 02, 2003) Memorandum of the Washington Util-
ities and Transportation Commission in Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for
Summary Judgment (NO. 03-2-00086-7)
Affidavit) (Wash.Super. Mar 17, 2003) Memorandum in Support of Plaintiffs'

Motion for Summary Judgment (NO. 03-2-00086-7)
1978 MCNALLY CPA'S & CONSULTANTS, S.C., Plaintiff, v. DJ HOSTS, INC., De-
davit) (Wis.Cir. Oct 31, 2002) Brief in Support of Defendant's Motion to Dis-
miss (NO. 00CV2746)
Trial Filings
1979 (1) TARRANT REGIONAL WATER DISTRICT, a Texas State Agency,
Plaintiff, v. (1) Rudolf John HERRMANN, (2) Jess Mark Nichols, (3) Linda
Lambert, (4) Ford Drummond, (5) Joseph E. Taron, (6) Ed Fite, (7) Jack W. Kee-
ley, (8) Kenneth K. Knowles, and (9) Richard Sevenoaks, in Their Official Capa-
cities as Members of the Oklahoma Water Resources Board (OWRB) and the Ok-
lahoma Water Conservation Storage Commission, Defendants., 2009 WL
5865231, *5865231 (Trial Filing) (W.D.Okla. Nov 16, 2009) Final Pretrial Re-
port (NO. 507CV00045) HN: 31 (S.Ct.)
1980 THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al. Plaintiff, v. James Lee
MOHOFF, One of the people of California (the sovereignty) jus soli, nunc pro
tune. Defendant., 2005 WL 6051659, *6051659 (Trial Filing) (Cal.Superior Jan
14, 2005) Order to Dismiss All Charges in the Interest of Justice, with Preju-
dice; Order to Show Cause (NO. 04HF1743FA)
Jury Instructions
1981 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, v. Charles P. REDEYE, Defendant., 1999
WL 34843512, *34843512+ (Jury Instruction) (W.D.N.Y. Apr 01, 1999) Defend-
ant's Requested Jury Instructions (NO. 98-CR-144A)
Secondary Sources (Canada)

1982 L'Autonomie Personnelle au Coeur des Droits Ancestraux : Sub Qua Lege Vivis
?, 52 McGill L.J. 657, 679+ (2007)
1983 BUT WE NEED THE EGGS: THE ROYAL COMMISSION, THE CHARTER
OF RIGHTS AND THE INHERENT RIGHT OF ABORIGINAL SELF-
GOVERNMENT, 49 U. Toronto L.J. 53, 121+ (1999)

Supreme Court Upholds Indian Tribe's Authority to Impose Severance Tax on Oil and Gas Production

Transféré par

Informations du document

Description originale:

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Supreme Court Upholds Indian Tribe's Authority to Impose Severance Tax on Oil and Gas Production

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

102 S.Ct.

Supreme Court of the United States

2011 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.

2011 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.

2011 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.

2011 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.

2011 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.

209k120 k. Regulation of Intercourse with Indians. Most Cited Cases

2011 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.

209k120 k. Regulation of Intercourse with Indians. Most Cited Cases

2011 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.

2011 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.

Indians 209 225

2011 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.

2011 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.

2011 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.

2011 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.

2011 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.

*133 Justice MARSHALL delivered the opinion of the Court.

2011 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.

2011 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.

2011 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.

2011 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.

2011 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.

2011 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.

2011 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.

2011 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.

2011 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.

2011 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.

2011 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.

2011 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.

2011 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.

2011 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.

2011 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.

2011 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.

2011 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.

2011 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.

2011 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.

1 C. Kappler, Indian Affairs, Laws and Treaties 875 (1904).

2011 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.

2011 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.

2011 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.

2011 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.

2011 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.

2011 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.

2011 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.

2011 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.

2011 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.

30 Hastings L.Rev. 89, 97 (1978).

2011 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.

2011 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.

2011 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.

2011 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.

2011 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.

2011 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.

2011 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.

2011 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.

jurisdiction. Cohen 143.

2011 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.

2011 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.

2011 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.

or business only by permission from the Indians. 23 Op.Atty.Gen., at 217.