Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Cossey v. Cherokee Nation Enterprises, LLC

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Decided January 20, 2009No. 105,300Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in part

KAUGER, J.,

with whom EDMONDSON, C.J., joins, concurring in part/dissenting in part:

T1 I agree with some of the majority's statements of the law, and I concur in remanding the cause, but not for the reasons expressed by the majority. The dispositive question is whether tort claim jurisdiction belongs exclusively or concurrently in state or tribal court when a non-tribal member falls off a chair at a Cherokee casino. The answer depends on several factors.

2 Indian law does not afford a "one-size-fits-all" solution. Jurisdiction depends on: 1) the choice of court, if any, negotiated under the…

2Cases cited28 opinions

  1. Seminole Tribe of Florida v. FloridaSupreme Court of the United States · 1996
  2. Santa Clara Pueblo v. MartinezSupreme Court of the United States · 1978
  3. Montana v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1981
  4. Williams v. LeeSupreme Court of the United States · 1959
  5. National Farmers Union Insurance v. Crow Tribe of IndiansSupreme Court of the United States · 1985

23 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