Pearsall v. Tribal Council for the Confederated Tribes of the Grand Ronde Community

Grand Ronde Tribal Court

Pearsall v. Tribal Council for the Confederated Tribes of the Grand Ronde Community

5 Am. Tribal Law 104

CourtGrand Ronde Tribal Court

DecidedJuly 22, 2004

DocketNo. C-02-10-007

StatusPublished

This text of 5 Am. Tribal Law 104 (Pearsall v. Tribal Council for the Confederated Tribes of the Grand Ronde Community) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Grand Ronde Tribal Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Pearsall v. Tribal Council for the Confederated Tribes of the Grand Ronde Community, 5 Am. Tribal Law 104 (grrondect 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

DON OWEN COSTELLO, Pro Tern Judge.

[105]*105This matter eame before the Court¹ on June 21, 2004 for oral argument of defendants’ motions to dismiss the first amended complaint.² Defendants move to dismiss the first, second and third claims for relief on grounds of mootness and for failure to state claims upon which relief can be granted.³ The court has reviewed and considered the pleadings, motions, and supporting materials filed before and after the appeal, and the oral arguments, and being fully advised in the premises, makes this order.

The court finds the first (declaratory judgment) and third (writ of mandamus) claims, if proven, are claims upon which relief can be granted under this court’s Constitutional “power to review and overturn tribal legislative actions for violations of the Constitution* * *.” G.R. Const, art. IV, Sec. 3; FRCP 12(b)(6). These claims are live controversies. The second claim for relief (injunction) is not a live controversy.

IT IS ORDERED that defendants’ motions to dismiss the first and third claims are denied.

IT IS ORDERED that defendants’ motions to dismiss the second claim are granted, with prejudice.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

ORDER

DON OWEN COSTELLO, Pro Tern Judge.

[105]*105This matter eame before the Court¹ on June 21, 2004 for oral argument of defendants’ motions to dismiss the first amended complaint.² Defendants move to dismiss the first, second and third claims for relief on grounds of mootness and for failure to state claims upon which relief can be granted.³ The court has reviewed and considered the pleadings, motions, and supporting materials filed before and after the appeal, and the oral arguments, and being fully advised in the premises, makes this order.

The court finds the first (declaratory judgment) and third (writ of mandamus) claims, if proven, are claims upon which relief can be granted under this court’s Constitutional “power to review and overturn tribal legislative actions for violations of the Constitution* * *.” G.R. Const, art. IV, Sec. 3; FRCP 12(b)(6). These claims are live controversies. The second claim for relief (injunction) is not a live controversy.

IT IS ORDERED that defendants’ motions to dismiss the first and third claims are denied.

IT IS ORDERED that defendants’ motions to dismiss the second claim are granted, with prejudice.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

5 Am. Tribal Law 104, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pearsall-v-tribal-council-for-the-confederated-tribes-of-the-grand-ronde-grrondect-2004.