CA10 Interprets Muscogee (Creek) Secured Transactions Law

The case is In re Harper (Malloy v. Wilserv CU). The CA10 held that tribal law gaps forced the court to resort to Oklahoma law, which appears to have undermined the purpose of having tribal law in the first place. It’s a bankruptcy case, with commercial law as a backdrop.

Here are the materials:

CA10 Opinion

Appendix and Record (incl. two bkrcty ct opinions, CA10 BAP opinion, and background docs)

Wilserv Credit Union Opening Brief

Trustee Response Brief

Wilserv Credit Union Reply Brief

– Attachment (incl. letter from State of Okla to tribal members)

Oklahoma Credit Unions and Banks Amicus Brief

This entry was posted in Author: Matthew L.M. Fletcher, Research, Tribal Codes, tribal courts and tagged , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s