Legal Opinion · Dissent

Hamaatsa, Inc. v. Pueblo of San Felipe

New Mexico Supreme Court

Decided September 20, 2013No. 34,287; Docket No. 31,297Published

1DissentWechsler, Judge

Regardless of the stage of a proceeding, the doctrine of tribal sovereign immunity applies to insulate Indian tribes from being required to defend actions in state court. I therefore believe that this Court must analyze the issues presented to the district court. When I conduct that analysis, I conclude that the Pueblo’s motion to dismiss should have been granted. I thus respectfully dissent.

TRIBAL SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY

My concerns with the Majority Opinion focus on its discussion of (1) Kiowa Tribe, 523 U.S. 751, (2) cases that do not involve tribal sovereign immunity, (3) the equities of this…

2Cases cited31 opinions

  1. Seminole Tribe of Florida v. FloridaSupreme Court of the United States · 1996
  2. United States v. Nordic Village, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1992
  3. Santa Clara Pueblo v. MartinezSupreme Court of the United States · 1978
  4. County of Yakima v. Confederated Tribes & Bands of the Yakima Indian NationSupreme Court of the United States · 1992
  5. City of Sherrill v. Oneida Indian Nation of NYSupreme Court of the United States · 2005

26 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