Legal Opinion

Twenty-Nine Palms Band of Mission Indians v. Wilson

District Court, C.D. California

Decided May 8, 1996No. CV 95-5177 MRPPublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

PFAELZER, District Judge.

I. INTRODUCTION

This is an action for declaratory relief by plaintiff Twenty-Nine Palms Band of Mission Indians (“plaintiff’ or the “Tribe”), a federally recognized Indian tribe, against state officials and entities including Governor Pete Wilson and the California State Athletic Commission (the “State Athletic Commission”) and its Executive Officer, Richard De Cuir (“De Cuir”) (collectively “defendants”). The dispute between the parties concerns the jurisdiction of the State through the State Athletic Commission to regulate and/or license boxing events staged…

2Cases cited15 opinions

  1. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1986
  2. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, Administratrix of the Estate of CatrettSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
  3. California v. Cabazon Band of Mission IndiansSupreme Court of the United States · 1987
  4. United States v. Mary Marcyes and James Siddle, United States of America v. Benjamin ReedCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1977
  5. William M. Kelley, Joseph S. Rossi, Robert E. Sims v. Board of Trustees, University of Illinois, Morton W. Weir, Ronald E. GuentherCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1994

10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Doe v. MannCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2005
  2. State v. StoneCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 1997
  3. Doe v. MannCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2005

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

Powered by the Exa API