Legal Opinion
Tamiami Partners, Ltd. v. Miccosukee Tribe of Indians
Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
Decided August 16, 1993No. Nos. 92-4869, 93-4375 and 93-4410PublishedCited by 21 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
HATCHETT, Circuit Judge:
In this lawsuit involving a contract dispute between Indians and non-Indians on Indian lands, we hold that the district court did not have subject matter jurisdiction.
I. FACTS
The Miecosukee Tribe of Indians of Florida (Tribe), a federally recognized Indian tribe, was organized under the Indian Reorganization Act of 1934, 25 U.S.C. § 461, et seq. In 1988, Congress enacted the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA), 25 U.S.C. § 2701, et seq., to define the powers of Indian tribes in conducting and regulating gaming on Indian land. In May, 1989, Tamiami Partners, Ltd. (TPL),…
2Cases cited15 opinions
- Caterpillar Inc. v. WilliamsSupreme Court of the United States · 1987
- Franchise Tax Bd. of Cal. v. Construction Laborers Vacation Trust for Southern Cal.Supreme Court of the United States · 1983
- Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Thompson Ex Rel. ThompsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Gully v. First Nat. Bank in MeridianSupreme Court of the United States · 1936
- American Fire & Casualty Co. v. FinnSupreme Court of the United States · 1951
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by21 opinions
- Niagara Mohawk Power Corp. v. Tonawanda Band of Seneca IndiansCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1996
- Tamiami Partners, Ltd. Ex Rel. Tamiami Development Corp. v. Miccosukee Tribe of IndiansCourt of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 1999
- State of Alabama v. PCI Gaming AuthorityCourt of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 2015
- McMILLIAN v. FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATIONCourt of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 1996
- Peabody Coal Company Peabody Western Coal Company Peabody Holding Group, Inc. v. Navajo NationCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2004
16 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.