Legal Opinion · Dissent

Doe v. Santa Clara Pueblo

New Mexico Supreme Court

Decided February 23, 2007No. 29,350, 29,351Published

1DissentMinzner, Justice

{50} I respectfully dissent. I agree with Judge Sutin, who dissented from the Court of Appeals’ majority opinion, that the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA), 25 U.S.C. § 2701 (2000), does not permit tribes and states to agree to shifting jurisdiction from tribal court to state court and thus does not allow the State to exercise jurisdiction over visitors’ personal injury claims arising on Indian land. Doe v. Santa Clara Pueblo, 2005-NMCA-110, ¶ 21, 138 N.M. 198, 118 P.3d 203 (Sutin, J., dissenting).

{51} My colleagues seem to rest their analysis at least in part on what IGRA does not say, as…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Williams v. LeeSupreme Court of the United States · 1959
  2. Montana v. Blackfeet Tribe of IndiansSupreme Court of the United States · 1985
  3. Doe ex rel. J.H. v. Santa Clara PuebloNew Mexico Court of Appeals · 2005
  4. Doe v. Santa Clara PuebloNew Mexico Court of Appeals · 2005

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

Powered by the Exa API