Legal Opinion · Dissent

Bradley v. Crow Tribe of Indians

Montana Supreme Court

Decided April 15, 2003No. 02-474Published

1DissentJustice Nelson

*84¶23 I dissent. While I generally agree with the Court’s holding, but not its reasoning, that the District Court’s contract analysis is in error, I strongly disagree with the Court’s conclusion at ¶ 21 that the District Court properly decided Paragraph 11 of the Bradley/Crow Tribe contract “was sufficient to waive jurisdictional objections.” Indeed, because the contract was not a sufficient waiver of tribal immunity, I would affirm the District Court for reaching the correct result, albeit for the wrong reason.

¶24 There are two fundamental issues of jurisdiction present in this case, tribal…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. National Farmers Union Insurance v. Crow Tribe of IndiansSupreme Court of the United States · 1985
  2. C & L Enterprises Inc. v. Citizen Band Potawatomi Indian Tribe of OklahomaSupreme Court of the United States · 2001
  3. Kennerly v. District Court of the Ninth Judicial District of MontanaSupreme Court of the United States · 1971
  4. Wippert v. Blackfeet Tribe of Blackfeet Indian ReservationMontana Supreme Court · 1993
  5. Balyeat Law, PC v. PettitMontana Supreme Court · 1998

4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API