Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part
At & T Corporation v. Coeur D'Alene Tribe
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Decided March 19, 2002No. 99-35088Published
1Concurring in part, dissenting in partRonald M. Gould, Circuit Judge
Although I concur in Part II of the majority opinion holding that the tribal court did not have subject matter jurisdiction over AT & T, I must respectfully dissent from Part III and the judgment. I would hold that the National Indian Gaming Commission (“NIGC”) did not issue a final decision that the National Indian Lottery (“NIL”) complies with the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (“IGRA”) and, therefore, that the district court could examine that issue in the first instance. Accordingly, I would reach the merits of the legality of the NIL and would conclude, as did the district court, that the…
2Cases cited17 opinions
- Seminole Tribe of Florida v. FloridaSupreme Court of the United States · 1996
- Bennett v. SpearSupreme Court of the United States · 1997
- Chicago & Southern Air Lines, Inc. v. Waterman Steamship Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1948
- Montana v. Blackfeet Tribe of IndiansSupreme Court of the United States · 1985
- Kenneth E. Sutton, Jr. v. Providence St. Joseph Medical Center, a California Non-Profit CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1999
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.