Cases 1 - 8 of 8
In re: Austin
as 16-4022
Petitioner:
MICHAEL P. AUSTIN
Respondent:
GARY DIETZ, HOWARD G. WARREN, FERRINGTON EVANS and others
Norton, et al v. Ute Indian Tribe of the Uintah, et al
as 15-4170
Plaintiff - Appellee:
VANCE NORTON, GARY JENSEN, KEITH CAMPBELL and others
Defendant - Appellant:
UTE INDIAN TRIBE OF THE UINTAH AND OURAY RESERVATION, a federally recognized Indian Tribe, BUSINESS COMMITTEE FOR THE UTE TRIBE OF THE UINTAH AND OURAY RESERVATION, in its official capacity, UTE TRIBAL COURT OF THE UINTAH AND OURAY RESERVATION and others
Norton et al v. Ute Indian Tribe of the Uintah and Ouray Reservation et al
as 2:2015cv00300
Plaintiff:
Vance Norton , Gary Jensen , Keith Campbell and others
Defendant:
Ute Indian Tribe of the Uintah and Ouray Reservation , Business Committee for the Ute Tribe of the Uintah and Ouray Reservation , Ute Tribal Court of the Uintah and Ouray Reservation and others
Movant:
Dave Swenson , Jeff Chugg , Rex Olsen and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331
In re: Ute Indian Tribe
as 14-4062
Petitioner:
UTE INDIAN TRIBE OF THE UINTAH AND OURAY RESERVATION
Respondent:
DUCHESNE COUNTY, a political subdivision of the State of Utah, STATE OF UTAH and UINTAH COUNTY, a political subdivision of the State of Utah
Defendant Third-Party Defendant:
BRUCE IGNACIO, Chairman of the Ute Tribal Business Committee, in his official capacity
Defendant:
MYTON, a municial corporation, ROOSEVELT CITY, a municipal corporation and DUCHESNE CITY, a municipal corporation
Third-Party Defendant:
GORDON HOWELL, Chairman of the Business Committee, RONALD J. WOPSOCK, STEWART PIKE, Member of the Ute Tribal Business Committee, in his official capacity and others
Ute Indian Tribe v. State of Utah, et al
as 14-4031
Consolidated Plaintiff:
TIMPANOGOS TRIBE
Defendant Third-Party Defendant:
BRUCE IGNACIO, Chairman of the Ute Tribal Business Committee, in his official capacity
Defendant Counter Claimant:
STATE OF UTAH and DUCHESNE COUNTY, a political subdivision of the State of Utah
Defendant Counter Claimant Third-Party Plaintiff - Appellant:
UINTAH COUNTY, a political subdivision of the State of Utah
Defendant Counter Claimant Third-Party Plaintiff - Appellee:
UTE INDIAN TRIBE OF THE UINTAH AND OURAY RESERVATION
Defendant:
MYTON, a municial corporation, ROOSEVELT COUNTY, a municipal corporation and DUCHESNE CITY, a municipal corporation
Third-Party Defendant:
GORDON HOWELL, Chairman of the Business Committee, RONALD J. WOPSOCK, STEWART PIKE, Member of the Ute Tribal Business Committee, in his official capacity and others
Amicus Curiae:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Movant:
GARY GARDNER and TIMPANOGOS TRIBE SNAKE BANK SHOSHONE INDIANS
Ute Indian Tribe v. State of Utah, et al
as 14-4028
Consol Plaintiff:
TIMPANOGOS TRIBE
Plaintiff-Counter-Claim-Defendant - Appellant:
UTE INDIAN TRIBE OF THE UINTAH AND OURAY RESERVATION
Defendant-Third-Party-Defendant:
BRUCE IGNACIO, Chairman of the Ute Tribal Business Committee, in his official capacity
Defendant-Counter-Claimant - Appellee:
DUCHESNE COUNTY, a political subdivision of the State of Utah
Defendant:
MYTON, a municial corporation, STATE OF UTAH, ROOSEVELT COUNTY, a municipal corporation and others
Third-Party-Defendant:
GORDON HOWELL, Chairman of the Business Committee, RONALD J. WOPSOCK, STEWART PIKE, Member of the Ute Tribal Business Committee, in his official capacity and others
Amicus Curiae:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Gardner, et al v. Arrowchis, et al
as 13-4122
Petitioner - Appellant:
EDSON G. GARDNER, Uintag Indian Descendent and LYNDA M. KOZLOWICZ
Respondent - Appellee:
TEX ARROWICHIS, Ute Tribal Chief, UTE INDIAN TRIBAL BUSINESS COMMITTEE and UTE TRIBAL COURT
Gardner et al v. Ute Indian Tribe et al
as 2:2012cv00210
Petitioner:
Edson Gardner, Lynda Kozlowicz and Konna C. Oviatt
Respondent:
Ute Indian Tribe, Ute Tribal Chairman, Ute Tribal Juvenile Court and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241
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.
