determining that the Montana “cases are inapplicable” to the jurisdictional propriety of a state tort action brought by a nonmember casino patron against a tribe “because they concern a tribe’s or a tribal court’s authority over non-Indians,” and “[t]he question in this matter is whether the state district court has acquired civil adjudicatory authority.”
How later courts described this case
- determining that the Montana “cases are inapplicable” to the jurisdictional propriety of a state tort action brought by a nonmember casino patron against a tribe “because they concern a tribe’s or a tribal court’s authority over non-Indians,” and “[t]he question in this matter is whether the state district court has acquired civil adjudicatory authority.”
- holding that a tribal court is not a court of general jurisdiction and that "[i]ts jurisdiction could be asserted in matters involving non-Indians only when their activities on Indian lands are activities that may be regulated by the Tribe"
Written by the judges who cited it.
Later courts went against this
Overruled in part by Sheffer v. Buffalo Run Casino, PTE, Inc., 2013 Okla. LEXIS 105 (2013)
To the extent Dye, 2009 OK 52, 280 P.3d 507, Griffith, 2009 OK 51, 230 P.3d 488, and Cossey, 2009 OK 6, 212 P.3d 447 conclude otherwise, they are overruled.
The opinion
KAUGER, J.,
dissenting to the denial of rehearing:
1 1 I would grant rehearing to re-examine the plurality opinion.