Legal Opinion · Dissent

Gavle v. Little Six, Inc.

Supreme Court of Minnesota

Decided October 31, 1996No. C0-95-133Published

1DissentKeith, Chief Justice

I respectfully dissent. While I agree with the majority that state courts have concurrent jurisdiction with tribal courts in lawsuits of this type, I disagree with the majority’s conclusion that for-profit, multi-million dollar private tribal businesses like Little Six, Inc. (LSI) may rely upon the same sovereign immunity defense to which the tribe itself is entitled. As the majority frames the issue, the question is whether LSI is a tribal entity “analogous to a governmental agency” which should benefit from the sovereign immunity defense, or whether LSI is in fact a “commercial business…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Dixon v. Picopa Construction Co.Arizona Supreme Court · 1989
  2. Ransom v. St. Regis Mohawk Education & Community Fund, Inc.New York Court of Appeals · 1995
  3. White Mountain Apache Indian Tribe v. ShelleyArizona Supreme Court · 1971
  4. S. Unique, Ltd. v. Gila River Pima-Maricopa Indian CommunityCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 1983
  5. Gavle v. Little Six, Inc.Court of Appeals of Minnesota · 1995

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

Powered by the Exa API