Legal Opinion
Maynard v. Narragansett Indian Tribe
District Court, D. Rhode Island
Decided August 10, 1992No. Civ. A. 92-0122 PPublishedCited by 9 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
PETTINE, Senior District Judge.
The Narragansett Indian Tribe (“Tribe”) moves this Court to dismiss the above-captioned case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Because the Tribe has limited sovereign immunity as a federally acknowledged and recognized Indian tribe, the Court grants its motion and dismisses the action.
I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Plaintiff Maynard owns land in Charles-town, Rhode Island that abuts the Narragansett Indian Reservation. The Tribe acquired its reservation in 1978 through negotiations with the state and the passage of several state statutes. See…
2Cases cited17 opinions
- United States v. TestanSupreme Court of the United States · 1976
- Santa Clara Pueblo v. MartinezSupreme Court of the United States · 1978
- Worcester v. GeorgiaSupreme Court of the United States · 1832
- Oklahoma Tax Comm'n v. Citizen Band of Potawatomi Tribe of Okla.Supreme Court of the United States · 1991
- California v. Cabazon Band of Mission IndiansSupreme Court of the United States · 1987
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by9 opinions
- Rhode Island v. Narragansett Indian TribeCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1994
- Kenneth L. Maynard v. Narragansett Indian TribeCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1993
- Narragansett Indian Tribe of Rhode Island v. Rhode IslandDistrict Court, D. Rhode Island · 2003
- Ingrassia v. Chicken Ranch Bingo and CasinoDistrict Court, E.D. California · 2009
- Rhode Island v. Narragansett Tribe of IndiansDistrict Court, D. Rhode Island · 1993
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.