Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 834568 order and opinion.pdf
- Citation
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 834568 order and opinion.pdf
- Jurisdiction
- Washington (state)
- Source verification
- official_capture_completeness_unverified
Related Parts of This Source
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 834568 order and opinion.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 834568 order and opinion.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 834568 order and opinion.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 834568 order and opinion.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 834568 order and opinion.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 834568 order and opinion.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 834568 order and opinion.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 834568 order and opinion.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 834568 order and opinion.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 834568 order and opinion.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 834568 order and opinion.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 834568 order and opinion.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 834568 order and opinion.pdf
Full Text
842 charsauthority over the Nooksack Tribe, a sovereign entity. The Rabangs fail to provide evidence supporting their interpretation of the letter. The Department’s decision to not recognize specific acts by the tribe should not be misinterpreted as a final ruling that “reverses” all preceding tribal actions. The DOI’s letter does not have the effect of stripping Judge Dodge and the other tribal employees of their status as officials of the Nooksack tribe acting in their official capacity. 11 For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/. No. 83456-8-I/12 We therefore conclude that sovereign immunity precludes state court jurisdiction over these claims. We need not reach other arguments raised in the parties’ briefs, including Judge Dodge’s assertion of judicial immunity. We affirm. WE CONCUR: 12