Artichoke Joe's v. Norton

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that Governor Brown was subject to suit under Ex parte Young where the plaintiff alleged “a specific connection to the challenged statute,” in that the governor “negotiated and approved the compacts that give rise to the plaintiffs’ alleged injuries”
• finding sufficient causal connection under Ex parte Young where “[t]he Governor negotiated and approved the compacts that give rise to the plaintiffs’ alleged injuries.”
• because court found that tribes were not necessary parties, it declined to consider whether they were indispensable under Rule 19(b)
• because court found that tribes were not necessary parties, it declined to consider whether they were indispensable under Rule 19(b)
• “although the tribes can claim a legal interest in this lawsuit, they are not necessary parties because their legal interest can be adequately represented by the Secretary”
• while tribes could claim a legal interest in lawsuit challenging validity of compacts between tribes and State, they were not necessary parties where their legal interest could be adequately represented by the Secretary

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).