Berrey v. Asarco Inc.
United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
439 F.3d 636 (2006)
- Written by Sarah Holley, JD
Facts
The United States allotted the Quapaw Tribe (plaintiff) land in northeast Oklahoma along Tar Creek. After lead and zinc ores were discovered on the land, the tribe and the United States Department of Interior (DOI) negotiated mining leases with various companies, including the predecessors in interest of both Blue Tee Corporation and Gold Fields Mining (defendants) (miners). As part of the lease, debris from the mining process (chat) was to be deposited on the land and thereafter deemed property of the tribe. The tribe then profited from the sale of this chat throughout the Tar Creek area. When mining ended, the tribe brought suit against the miners, claiming environmental contamination to the Quapaw land as a result of their mining activities. The miners filed counterclaims for contribution and indemnity, arguing that the tribe contributed to any alleged contamination through its use of chat. The tribe filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that the counterclaims were barred by tribal sovereign immunity. The district court denied the tribe’s motion, finding that the counterclaims were claims in recoupment, and that the tribe had waived its sovereign immunity as to claims in recoupment by filing suit. The tribe appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Murphy, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 807,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.