Legal Opinion
Mendoza v. TAMAYA ENTERPRISES, INC.
New Mexico Supreme Court
Decided June 27, 2011No. 32,447PublishedCited by 5 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
MAES, Justice.
{1} In this appeal we first address the question of state court jurisdiction in a dram shop action brought under the Tribal-State Class III Gaming Compact (the Compact), negotiated between the State of New Mexico and the Pueblo of Santa Ana pursuant to the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act of 1988, 25 U.S.C. §§ 2701-2721 (2006). There is an apparent conflict between Section 8 of the Compact, 1 which provides for state court jurisdiction where a casino visitor has been injured by the conduct of a casino, and Section 191 of the Pueblo of Santa Ana Liquor Ordinance, which…
2Cases cited15 opinions
- Herrera Ex Rel. Estate of Ruiz v. Quality PontiacNew Mexico Supreme Court · 2003
- Lopez Ex Rel. Lopez v. MaezNew Mexico Supreme Court · 1982
- Smith v. SewellTexas Supreme Court · 1993
- Gallegos v. Pueblo of TesuqueNew Mexico Supreme Court · 2002
- Baxter Ex Rel. Estate of Baxter v. NoceNew Mexico Supreme Court · 1988
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- Pueblo of Santa Ana v. NashDistrict Court, D. New Mexico · 2013
- Sipp v. Buffalo Thunder, Inc.New Mexico Court of Appeals · 2021
- Pueblo of Santa Ana v. NashDistrict Court, D. New Mexico · 2012
- Kaufman v. Blazin Wings, Inc.District Court, D. New Mexico · 2021
- Kaufman v. Blazin Wings, Inc.District Court, D. New Mexico · 2021