Strate v. A-1 Contractors
Decision Date | 28 April 1997 |
Docket Number | Case No. 95-1872 |
Parties | STRATE, ASSOCIATE TRIBAL JUDGE, TRIBAL COURT OF THE THREE AFFILIATED TRIBES OF THE FORT BERTHOLD INDIAN RESERVATION, et al. v. A-1 CONTRACTORS et al. |
Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
Vehicles driven by petitioner Fredericks and respondent Stockert collided on a portion of a North Dakota state highway that runs through the Fort Berthold Indian Reservation. The 6.59-mile stretch of highway within the reservation is open to the public, affords access to a federal water resource project, and is maintained by North Dakota under a federally granted right-of-way that lies on land held by the United States in trust for the Three Affiliated Tribes and their members. Neither driver is a member of the Tribes or an Indian, but Fredericks is the widow of a deceased tribal member and has five adult children who are also members. The truck driven by Stockert belonged to his employer, respondent A-1 Contractors, a non-Indian-owned enterprise with its principal place of business outside the reservation. At the time, A-1 was under a subcontract with LCM Corporation, a corporation wholly owned by the Tribes, to do landscaping within the reservation. The record does not show whether Stockert was engaged in sub-contract work at the time of the accident. Fredericks filed a personal injury action in Tribal Court against Stockert and A-1, and Fredericks' adult children filed a loss-of-consortium claim in the same lawsuit. The Tribal Court ruled that it had jurisdiction over Fredericks' claim and therefore denied respondents' motion to dismiss, and the Northern Plains Intertribal Court of Appeals affirmed. Respondents then commenced this action in the Federal District Court against Fredericks, her adult children, the Tribal Court, and Tribal Judge Strate, seeking a declaratory judgment that, as a matter of federal law, the Tribal Court lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate Fredericks' claims; respondents also sought an injunction against further Tribal Court proceedings. Relying particularly on National Farmers Union Ins. Cos. v. Crow Tribe, 471 U.S. 845, and Iowa Mut. Ins. Co. v. LaPlante, 480 U.S. 9, the District Court dismissed the action, determining that the Tribal Court had civil jurisdiction over Fredericks' complaint against respondents. Theen banc Eighth Circuit reversed, concluding that the controlling precedent was Montana v. United States, 450 U.S. 544, and that, under Montana, the Tribal Court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over the dispute.
Held:
A-1 was engaged in subcontract work on the reservation, and therefore had a "consensual relationship" with the Tribes, Fredericks was not a party to the subcontract, and the Tribes were strangers to the accident. Montana's second exception, concerning conduct that "threatens or has some direct effect on the political integrity, the economic security, or the health or welfare of the tribe," 450 U.S., at 566, is also inapplicable. The cases cited by Montana as stating this exception each raised the question whether a State's (or Territory's) exercise of authority would trench unduly on tribal self-government. Fisher v. District Court of Sixteenth Judicial Dist. of Mont., 424 U.S. 382, 386; Williams, 358 U.S., at 220; Montana Catholic Missions v. Missoula County, 200 U.S. 118, 128-129; and Thomas v. Gay, 169 U.S. 264, 273. Opening the Tribal Court for Fredericks' optional use is not necessary to protect tribal self-government; and requiring A-1 and Stockert to defend against this commonplace state highway accident claim in an unfamiliar court is not crucial to the Tribes' political integrity, economic security, or health or welfare. Pp. 456-459. 76 F.3d 930, affirmed.
Melody L. McCoy argued the cause for petitioners. With her on the brief was Donald R. Wharton.
Jonathan E. Nuechterlein argued the cause for the United States as amicus curiae urging reversal. With him on the brief were Acting Solicitor General Dellinger, Assistant Attorney General Schiffer, Deputy Solicitor General Kneedler, and Edward J. Shawaker.
Patrick J. Ward argued the cause and filed a brief for respondents.*
This case concerns the adjudicatory authority of tribal courts over personal injury actions...
To continue reading
Request your trial- Strate v. A-1 Contractors
-
Walker v. Group Health Services, Inc.
... ... 56. Atkinson v. Halliburton Co., 1995 OK 104, ¶ 12, 905 P.2d 772 ... 57. Strate ... 56. Atkinson v. Halliburton Co., 1995 OK 104, ¶ 12, 905 P.2d 772 ... 57. Strate v. A-1 Contractors ... ...
-
State ex rel. Department of Transportation v. Little
... ... Id.; Walker v. Group Health Services, Inc., 2001 OK 2, ¶38, 37 P.3d 749, 761-62 ; Strate v. A-1 Contractors, 520 U.S. 438, 451, 117 S.Ct. 1404, 1412, 137 L.Ed.2d 661 (1997) ... It raises a remedial barrier to judicial relief when an ... ...
-
Rebooting Indian law in the Supreme Court.
...at http://turtletalk.wordpress.com/2010/05/11/indian-treaty-rights-showdown- in-minnesota-possible/. (41.) 435 U.S. 191 (1978). (42.) 520 U.S. 438 (43.) See Estates of Red Wolf and Bull Tail v. Burlington N. R.R. Co., No. 94-31 (Crow Court of Appeals, Feb. 21, 1996); Burlington N. R.R. Co. ......