Legal Opinion

Native Village of Eyak v. GC Contractors

Alaska Supreme Court

Decided January 14, 1983No. 6274PublishedCited by 50 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

COMPTON, Justice.

In this appeal, the Native Village of Eyak (“Eyak”) contends that it is an “Indian tribe” and therefore immune from the suit brought against it by appellee GC Contractors. Eyak further contends that it did not waive its immunity by entering into a contract with GC Contractors containing an arbitration clause. We disagree with this contention. For the reasons set forth below, we conclude that it is not necessary to determine whether Eyak is an Indian tribe because, assuming that it is, Eyak waived whatever immunity it possessed when it agreed to resolve by arbitration…

2Cases cited21 opinions

  1. United States v. TestanSupreme Court of the United States · 1976
  2. United States v. KingSupreme Court of the United States · 1969
  3. Santa Clara Pueblo v. MartinezSupreme Court of the United States · 1978
  4. United States v. WheelerSupreme Court of the United States · 1978
  5. Worcester v. GeorgiaSupreme Court of the United States · 1832

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

3Cited by50 opinions

  1. C & L Enterprises Inc. v. Citizen Band Potawatomi Indian Tribe of OklahomaSupreme Court of the United States · 2001
  2. Pan American Company v. Sycuan Band of Mission IndiansCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1989
  3. Julsen v. JulsenAlaska Supreme Court · 1987
  4. Oglala Sioux Tribe v. C & W ENTERPRISES, INC.Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 2008
  5. Dixon v. DixonAlaska Supreme Court · 1987

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

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

Powered by the Exa API