upholding state court jurisdiction over a dram-shop action brought as part of the "extant jurisprudence" under Oklahoma's "comprehensive statutory scheme" regarding the sale of alcohol and, "[c]onsistent with Rice v. Rehner, ... reject[ing] the Tribe's argument that [ 18 U.S.C.] § 1161 does not authorize the state courts to exercise jurisdiction over the Tribe"
How later courts described this case
- upholding state court jurisdiction over a dram-shop action brought as part of the "extant jurisprudence" under Oklahoma's "comprehensive statutory scheme" regarding the sale of alcohol and, "[c]onsistent with Rice v. Rehner, ... reject[ing] the Tribe's argument that [ 18 U.S.C.] § 1161 does not authorize the state courts to exercise jurisdiction over the Tribe"
- observing that the majority opinion "ignores controlling precedents” and that "[ijt takes a great leap of jurisprudence to determine that Rice v. Rehner is dispositive of the issue of sovereign immunity as it relates to private dram shop actions”
Written by the judges who cited it.
Later courts went against this
Overruled by Sheffer v. Buffalo Run Casino, PTE, Inc., 2013 Okla. LEXIS 105 (2013)
Biffle v. Bahe, 2008 OK 10, 192 P.3d 810, is overruled.
The opinion
WATT, J.
concurring specially.
T1 I express no opinion as to whether liability may ultimately lie against the Tribe under the facts presented. Nevertheless, I agree with the majority's determination that the Tribe effectively waived any right to the shield of sovereign immunity by the casino's agreement to be bound by state law. I also recognize that, generally, the issue of tribal sovereign immunity is established by federal law. In reaching the decision today, this Court has considered federal precedent. However, onee the casino waived its sovereign immunity by agreeing to be bound by Oklahoma law, state law became the measure by which the cause was to be governed. Therefore, the determination that the Tribe is subject to suit in Oklahoma courts rests squarely within Oklahoma law which provides bona fide, separate, adequate and independent grounds for our decision. 1
. Michigan v. Long, 463 U.S. 1032 , 103 S.Ct. 3469, 3476 , 77 L.Ed.2d 1201 (1983).