Legal Opinion

Whiteagle v. Cloud

Ho-Chunk Nation Supreme Court

Decided August 5, 2004No. CV 04-04PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

*179ORDER (Granting Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss)

TODD R. MATHA, Associate Judge.

INTRODUCTION

The Court must determine whether to grant the defendants’ motion to dismiss. The institutional defendant retains sovereign immunity from suit, whereas the individual defendants retain no continuing official authority. The Court, therefore, cannot redress the plaintiffs’ alleged harm, and consequently enters a dismissal without prejudice.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

The plaintiffs, Timothy G. Whiteagle and Gretchen Eagleman, initiated the current action by filing a Complaint for Declaratory Judgments (hereinafter…

2Cases cited14 opinions

  1. Ex Parte YoungSupreme Court of the United States · 1908
  2. Association of Data Processing Service Organizations, Inc. v. CampSupreme Court of the United States · 1970
  3. Ashwander v. Tennessee Valley AuthoritySupreme Court of the United States · 1936
  4. Aetna Life Insurance v. HaworthSupreme Court of the United States · 1937
  5. Steffel v. ThompsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1974

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

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Lewis v. Ho-Chunk Nation Election BoardHo-Chunk Nation Trial Court · 2006
  2. Funmaker v. Election BoardHo-Chunk Nation Trial Court · 2009
  3. Ho-Chunk Nation v. Ho-Chunk Nation Grievance Review BoardHo-Chunk Nation Trial Court · 2010
  4. Lowe-Ennis v. Ho-Chunk Nation Tribal Employment Rights Ordinance CommissionHo-Chunk Nation Trial Court · 2006

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

Powered by the Exa API