St. Regis Mohawk Tribe v. Paterson et al
| St. Regis Mohawk Tribe |
| David A. Paterson, Jamie Woodward, William Comiskey and New York Association of Convenience Stores |
| New York State Association of Counties and American Cancer Society |
| 1:2010cv00811 |
| October 12, 2010 |
| US District Court for the Western District of New York |
| Buffalo Office |
| XX US, Outside State |
| Richard J. Arcara |
| Constitutionality of State Statutes |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 2201 |
| None |
Follow case documents by RSS
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing
84
DECISION AND ORDER: Defendants' motions for summary judgment (ECF No. 61 in 10-CV-711 & ECF No. 69 in 10-CV-811) are GRANTED. Plaintiff Unkechauge Indian Nation's motion to dismiss (ECF No. 69 in 10-CV-711) is DENIED. Plaintiff St. Regis Mo hawk Tribe's motion to withdraw and to dismiss (ECF No. 98 in 10-CV-711) is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART, in that the Court permits St. Regis Mohawk Tribe to withdraw the cross-motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 70 in 10-CV-711) but othe rwise denies its requests. New York Association of Convenience Stores' motion for leave to file amicus brief (ECF No. 72 in 10-CV-811) is DENIED AS MOOT. The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment against Plaintiffs in both cases and close the cases. SO ORDERED. Signed by Hon. Frank P. Geraci, Jr. on 2/4/2020. (MFM)-CLERK TO FOLLOW UP-
|
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the New York Western District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
