Logourl black
From our private database of 14,000+ case briefs...

In re Gaming Related Cases

United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
331 F.3d 1094 (2003)


Facts

The Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA), 25 U.S.C. § 2701 et seq., requires that Indian tribes and states negotiate a gaming compact to govern class III gaming on Indian reservations. The State of California (defendant) negotiated with 58 Indian tribes to create the Davis Compact. The Davis Compact granted the Indian tribes the exclusive right to conduct class III gaming provided that the tribes (1) donated a portion of gaming profits to tribes without gaming facilities under a revenue sharing trust fund (RSTF), (2) contributed a portion of gaming revenue to state-related costs and programs for gambling addiction under a special distribution fund (SDF), and (3) collaborated with labor unions to create a tribal labor relations ordinance governing employees who worked at the casinos. Fifty-seven of the 58 tribes signed the Davis Compact. The Coyote Band of Pomo Indians (Coyote Band) (plaintiff) did not. The Coyote Band sued in district court, contending that California failed to negotiate in good faith as required under the IGRA. Specifically, the Coyote Band alleged that by conditioning the Davis Compact on the RSTF, SDF, and labor relations provisions, California acted in bad faith per se and that the revenue-related provisions were a direct taxation that gave rise to a statutory presumption of bad faith under the IGRA. The Coyote Band requested the district court to order California to negotiate in good faith. The court denied the Coyote Band’s request and entered judgment for California. The Coyote Band appealed.

Rule of Law

The rule of law is the black letter law upon which the court rested its decision.

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

Issue

The issue section includes the dispositive legal issue in the case phrased as a question.

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

Holding and Reasoning (Fletcher, J.)

The holding and reasoning section includes:

  • A “yes” or “no” answer to the question framed in the issue section;
  • A summary of the majority or plurality opinion, using the CREAC method; and
  • The procedural disposition (e.g. reversed and remanded, affirmed, etc.).

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 97,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Vanderbilt, Berkeley, and the University of Illinois—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students. Read our student testimonials.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students. Read more about Quimbee.

Here's why 174,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 14,000 briefs, keyed to 188 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.