Case: 18-1449 Document: 23 Filed: 06/27/2018 Pages: 54
Case: 18-1449
Document: 23
Filed: 06/27/2018
Pages: 54
No. 18-1449
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT
STOCKBRIDGE-MUNSEE
COMMUNITY, a federally recognized
Indian Tribe,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
STATE OF WISCONSIN;
SCOTT WALKER, in his official capacity
as the Governor of Wisconsin; and
THE HO-CHUNK NATION, a federally
recognized Indian Tribe,
Defendants-Appellees.
APPEAL FROM THE U.S. DISTRICT COURT FOR
THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN, NO. 17-CV-249-JDP,
THE HONORABLE JAMES D. PETERSON, U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE
RESPONSE BRIEF OF STATE OF WISCONSIN
AND SCOTT WALKER
BRAD D. SCHIMEL
Wisconsin Attorney General
THOMAS C. BELLAVIA
Assistant Attorney General
State Bar #1030182
MAURA FJ WHELAN
Assistant Attorney General
State Bar #1027974
COLIN T. ROTH
Assistant Attorney General
State Bar #1103985
Attorneys for Defendants-Appellees
State of Wisconsin and Scott Walker
Case: 18-1449
Document: 23
Wisconsin Department of Justice
Post Office Box 7857
Madison, Wisconsin 53707-7857
(608) 266-8690 (Bellavia)
(608) 266-3859 (Whelan)
(608) 266-6219 (Roth)
(608) 267-2223 (Fax)
bellaviatc@doj.state.wi.us
*Counsel of Record
Filed: 06/27/2018
Pages: 54
Case: 18-1449
Document: 23
Filed: 06/27/2018
Pages: 54
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
JURISDICTIONAL STATEMENT ......................................................................1
ISSUES PRESENTED .........................................................................................2
INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................3
STATEMENT OF THE CASE .............................................................................5
I.
II.
Factual Background..........................................................................5
A.
Stockbridge ..............................................................................5
B.
Ho-Chunk ................................................................................8
C.
Wittenberg ............................................................................ 10
Procedural Background. ................................................................ 11
SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT .................................................................. 15
STANDARD OF REVIEW ................................................................................. 18
ARGUMENT ...................................................................................................... 19
I.
Stockbridge¡¯s status as a tribal sovereign does not
make its claims against the State exempt from statutes
of limitation. ................................................................................... 19
A.
Nullum tempus does not apply here because the
statute of limitations borrowed by the district
court applies to actions brought by a government
plaintiff. ................................................................................ 20
B.
Nullum tempus also does not apply because
Stockbridge waived its sovereign immunity in
the Stockbridge Compact. .................................................... 24
C.
Nullum tempus does not apply where, as here, a
governmental plaintiff is acting in a proprietary
rather than a governmental capacity. ................................ 26
-i-
Case: 18-1449
Document: 23
Filed: 06/27/2018
Pages: 54
Page
II.
Stockbridge¡¯s claims for declaratory and injunctive
relief against the State are subject to statutes of
limitation notwithstanding their equitable character. ................ 28
III.
The district court did not apply state law to the
regulation of tribal gaming, but applied federal law,
which incorporates state statutes of limitation. .......................... 34
IV.
The district court correctly borrowed Wisconsin¡¯s
statute of limitations for actions on a contract, rather
than for claims to enjoin a public nuisance, because
Stockbridge¡¯s claims against the State are more closely
analogous to a contract claim. ....................................................... 36
V.
Stockbridge¡¯s claims against the State accrued
in 2008. ........................................................................................... 39
VI.
Stockbridge has abandoned any appeal of the district
court¡¯s denial of Stockbridge¡¯s motion for leave to
amend its complaint. ..................................................................... 41
CONCLUSION ................................................................................................... 42
ii
Case: 18-1449
Document: 23
Filed: 06/27/2018
Pages: 54
Page
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Cases
118 E. 60th Owners, Inc. v. Bonner Props., Inc.,
677 F.2d 200 (2d Cir. 1982) ........................................................................... 30
Affiliated FM Ins. Co. v. Bd. of Educ. of Chi.,
23 F.3d 1261 (7th Cir. 1994) .......................................................................... 22
Algrant v. Evergreen Valley Nurseries P¡¯ship,
126 F.3d 178 (3d Cir. 1997) ........................................................................... 30
Amin Ijbara Equity Corp. v. Vill. of Oak Lawn,
860 F.3d 489 (7th Cir. 2017) .......................................................................... 18
Bass v. Joliet Pub. Sch. Dist. No. 86,
746 F.3d 835 (7th Cir. 2014) .......................................................................... 33
Baxter v. State,
10 Wis. 454 (1860) .................................................................................... 22, 23
Bd. of Regents v. Tomasio,
446 U.S. 478 (1980) .................................................................................. 34, 35
Bechler v. Kaye,
222 F.2d 216 (10th Cir.1955) ......................................................................... 30
Bernstein v. Bankert,
733 F.3d 190 (7th Cir. 2013) .......................................................................... 19
Buchanan-Moore v. Cty. of Milwaukee,
570 F.3d 824 (7th Cir. 2009) .......................................................................... 18
Cabazon Band of Mission Indians v. Wilson,
124 F.3d 1050 (9th Cir. 1997) ........................................................................ 29
Cada v. Baxter Healthcare Corp.,
920 F.2d 446 (7th Cir. 1990) .......................................................................... 40
Carpenter v. State,
41 Wis. 36 (1876) ............................................................................................ 23
Cathedral of Joy Baptist Church v. Vill. of Hazel Crest,
22 F.3d 713 (7th Cir. 1994) ............................................................................ 40
iii
................
................
In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.
To fulfill the demand for quickly locating and searching documents.
It is intelligent file search solution for home and business.
Related download
- brb no 14 0077 bla douglas r barr claimant respondent
- authorization for use or disclosure of protected health
- specialty care physician directory
- louisville medicine
- internet archive
- style guide uofl health now
- case 18 1449 document 23 filed 06 27 2018 pages 54
- service line strategies for us hospitals
- pcp by group name may 2009
- in the supreme court of tennessee at nashville
Related searches
- bbb complaints filed against businesses
- nfpa 54 2018 pdf download
- open pages document on windows
- can 941 be filed online
- complaints filed against dentists
- filed articles of organization
- view filed tax return
- search lawsuits filed in texas
- estates filed in maryland
- civil lawsuits filed in texas
- use case document format
- use case document template