Val-U Construction Co. v. Rosebud Sioux Tribe
United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
146 F.3d 573 (1998)
- Written by Emily Pokora, JD
Facts
The Rosebud Sioux Tribe (tribe) (plaintiff) and Val-U Construction Company of South Dakota (Val-U) (defendant) entered into a construction contract containing an arbitration clause. Arbitration was governed by the Construction Industry Arbitration Rules (CIAR) of the American Arbitration Association. Following a dispute, the tribe terminated the agreement. Val-U initiated arbitration, and the tribe chose not to participate, asserting a sovereign-immunity defense. The tribe then filed suit in district court, alleging breach of contract. Val-U cited the arbitration agreement as an affirmative defense. The arbitrator found in favor of Val-U and entered an award. The tribe refused to be bound by the award. The district court dismissed both parties’ claims, and the tribe appealed. The tribe argued that (1) the arbitration provision was not a waiver of sovereign immunity under federal law, (2) the arbitration award was invalid because it was entered on default, (3) the agreement did not allow Val-U to arbitrate without the tribe, and (4) Val-U was required to file motions to stay the court’s proceedings and compel the tribe’s participation at the arbitration. The tribe stated that it failed to participate in arbitration because it was awaiting the district court’s ruling on its sovereign-immunity defense.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Waters, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 830,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,400 briefs, keyed to 994 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.
