Wisconsin v. Ho-Chunk Nation

How courts have described this case

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

• stating that jurisdiction under Act is \determined by whether federal question jurisdiction would exist over the presumed suit by the declaratory judgment defendant\
• stating that “the district court has supplemental jurisdiction over [state law] claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a
• noting that federal court has supplemental jurisdiction over related state law claims that “derive from a common nucleus of operative fact”
• stating that jurisdiction under Act is “determined by whether federal question jurisdiction would exist over the presumed suit by the declaratory judgment defendant”
• declining to decide whether general fund revenue sharing is invalid, but noting that it was apparently not a subject “contemplated by Congress as being one of the matters tribes and the states may negotiate over under the IGRA”
• declining to decide whether general fund revenue sharing is invalid, but noting that it was apparently not a subject \contemplated by Congress as being one of the matters tribes and the states may negotiate over under the IGRA\

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).