AI Generated Opinion Summaries

This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.

Facts

The Plaintiff, a non-Indian, sustained personal injuries on March 12, 1992, while exiting a ski lift at Ski Apache Resort, a ski facility owned and operated by the Apache Tribe of the Mescalero Reservation. The accident occurred entirely within the boundaries of the Mescalero Apache Reservation. The resort operates as a single business entity, with portions located both on and off the reservation (paras 1, 6).

Procedural History

• District Court, Twelfth Judicial District: Denied the Tribe's motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, holding that the Tribe had waived its sovereign immunity by operating the resort (para 7).

Parties' Submissions

• Plaintiff: Argued that the Tribe waived its sovereign immunity by engaging in commercial activity through the operation of the resort, which is partially located off the reservation. The Plaintiff contended that the resort's off-reservation activities subjected the Tribe to state court jurisdiction (paras 7, 12).
• Defendant (Apache Tribe): Asserted that the state court lacked jurisdiction due to the Tribe's sovereign immunity, which was not expressly waived. The Tribe argued that the Mescalero Apache Tribal Courts had exclusive jurisdiction over the matter, as the incident occurred entirely within the reservation (paras 7, 11).

Legal Issues

• Did the trial court have jurisdiction over a claim made by a non-Indian for personal injuries sustained within the boundaries of an Indian reservation?
• Can the Tribe waive its sovereign immunity by implication or by engaging in commercial activity?

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's decision and remanded the case with instructions to dismiss the Plaintiff's complaint for lack of jurisdiction (para 18).

Reasons

Per Apodaca CJ (Pickard and Bosson JJ. concurring):

• Indian tribes are recognized as "domestic dependent nations" with inherent sovereign authority, including immunity from suit in state courts unless there is an unequivocal waiver of immunity or congressional abrogation (paras 9-10).
• The Tribe did not expressly waive its sovereign immunity, as evidenced by its constitution, which reserves jurisdiction over civil matters to the Tribal Courts (para 11).
• The Plaintiff's reliance on Padilla v. Pueblo of Acoma was misplaced, as that case involved off-reservation conduct, whereas the Plaintiff's injuries occurred entirely within the reservation. The location of the incident is the controlling factor, and the Tribe's immunity applies to on-reservation activities (paras 12-14).
• The Court adopted the reasoning in Sac & Fox Nation v. Hanson, which held that tribal sovereign immunity applies even to commercial activities, regardless of whether they occur on or off the reservation. This reasoning aligns with federal precedent and supports the Tribe's immunity in this case (paras 15-16).
• The trial court erred in denying the Tribe's motion to dismiss, as the Mescalero Apache Tribal Courts have exclusive jurisdiction over the lawsuit (para 18).