Legal Opinion
BIG LAGOON RANCHERIA v. California
District Court, N.D. California
Decided January 27, 2011No. 09-01471 CWPublishedCited by 4 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND DENYING DEFENDANT’S CROSS-MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (Docket Nos. 80 and 93)
CLAUDIA WILKEN, District Judge.
Over the past several years, Plaintiff Big Lagoon Ranchería (Big Lagoon or the Tribe) has sought to enter into a tribal-state compact with Defendant State of California that permits it to conduct class III gaming. The Tribe alleges that the State has negotiated in bad faith. Big Lagoon moves for summary judgment and an order directing the State to negotiate in good faith, under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA), 25 U.S.C.…
2Cases cited20 opinions
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, Administratrix of the Estate of CatrettSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Landis v. North American Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1936
- Seminole Tribe of Florida v. FloridaSupreme Court of the United States · 1996
- Nken v. HolderSupreme Court of the United States · 2009
- Swint v. Chambers County CommissionSupreme Court of the United States · 1995
15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- Big Lagoon Rancheria v. State of CaliforniaCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2015
- Flandreau Santee Sioux Tribe v. GerlachDistrict Court, D. South Dakota · 2017
- Chicken Ranch Rancheria of Me-Wuk Indians v. State of CaliforniaDistrict Court, E.D. California · 2021
- Chicken Ranch Rancheria of Me-Wuk Indians v. State of CaliforniaDistrict Court, E.D. California · 2021