Here, see page 40.
Here is the petition in Jones v. Norton:
Lower court materials here.
Panel materials here.
Here are the pleadings in Seminole Tribe of Florida v. State of Florida (N.D. Fla.):
Motion to dismiss stage pleadings here.
Here is the complaint in United States v. Enbridge Energy (W.D. Mich.):
Here is the complaint captioned California Valley Miwok Tribe v. Jewell (E.D. Cal.):
Here is the complaint in Skokomish Indian Tribe v. Forsman (W.D. Wash.):
Here is the opinion in Russell Road Food & Beverage v. Spencer.
Once associated with a legendary Native American leader, “Crazy Horse” is now a registered trademark for “entertainment services, namely, exotic dance performances.” We must decide whether Russell Road’s use of the mark “Crazy Horse III” for its Las Vegas strip club infringes defendants Frank Spencer and Crazy Horse Consulting’s rights to the trademark “Crazy Horse.” The district court granted summary judgment to Russell Road, holding that it has the right to use the mark because it is the assignee of a valid trademark co-existence agreement entered into with the former owner of the registered Crazy Horse mark. We agree, and therefore affirm the entry of summary judgment in favor of Russell Road.
Here are the materials in United States v. Bearcomesout (D. Mont.):
Citing decades of “schizophrenic” case law, Bearcomesout argues that the law has evolved such that the Northern Cheyenne Tribe’s concept of self-governance and sovereignty has disappeared. As a result, Bearcomesout argues that the Tribe is “subject to the external whim of the United States” which inherently extinguishes the tribe’s sovereignty. Because the Tribe is not sovereign, Bearcomesout argues that her prosecution in Northern Cheyenne Tribal Court was in essence a federal prosecution, in violation of the Double Jeopardy Clause.
The obvious disagreement about the state of tribal sovereignty among Supreme Court justices contained in various dissents and concurrences over the years unquestionably creates uncertainty and doubt about whether the term “independent sovereign” still appropriately applies to Indian tribes. Nevertheless, as recently as June of this year, the Supreme Court reaffirmed the rule from Wheeler and its progeny that tribal sovereignty continues to exist, at least as it relates to Double Jeopardy….
Here (pages 6-7):