Legal Opinion · Dissent
Automotive United Trades Organization v. State
Washington Supreme Court
Decided August 30, 2012No. 85661-3Published
1DissentFairhurst, J.
¶50 (dissenting) — Under a proper CR 19(b) analysis, the Indian tribes are indispensable parties and they will be severely prejudiced by a state court judgment rendered in their absence. Because the majority incorrectly holds that the tribes are not indispensable parties, it seriously undermines the doctrine of tribal sovereign immunity and weakens the law. I dissent.
ANALYSIS
¶51 The issue in this case is whether Automotive United Trades Organization (AUTO) may sue the State over gas tax compacts involving certain Indian tribes. As discussed by the majority, the tribes that are party to the…
2Cases cited25 opinions
- Provident Tradesmens Bank & Trust Co. v. PattersonSupreme Court of the United States · 1968
- Worcester v. GeorgiaSupreme Court of the United States · 1832
- National Licorice Co. v. National Labor Relations BoardSupreme Court of the United States · 1940
- Kiowa Tribe of Oklahoma v. Manufacturing Technologies, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1998
- Saratoga County Chamber of Commerce, Inc. v. PatakiNew York Court of Appeals · 2003
20 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.