You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.

McCarthy & Associates v. Jackpot Junction Bingo Hall

Citations: 490 N.W.2d 156; 1992 Minn. App. LEXIS 1026; 1992 WL 251503Docket: C0-92-909

Court: Court of Appeals of Minnesota; October 6, 1992; Minnesota; State Appellate Court

Narrative Opinion Summary

This case involves a dispute between a tribal-owned enterprise, Jackpot Junction Bingo Hall, and McCarthy Associates, regarding the applicability of tribal sovereign immunity in a breach of contract claim. The appellant, a tribal enterprise, sought dismissal of the suit based on sovereign immunity, arguing that the immunity was not waived in the lease agreements. The trial court, however, found that a 'sue and be sued' clause in the tribal corporate charter constituted a waiver of immunity. On appeal, the court reviewed the issue de novo and affirmed the trial court's ruling, emphasizing that sovereign immunity can be expressly waived through provisions in tribal charters. The appellant's arguments concerning the necessity of explicit waivers in all agreements and the scope of the waiver clause were rejected. Additionally, the appellate court declined to consider new arguments about governmental functions raised for the first time on appeal. Ultimately, the affirmation of the trial court's decision upheld the position that the tribal enterprise waived its sovereign immunity, allowing the breach of contract suit to proceed against it.

Legal Issues Addressed

Appellate Review Limitations

Application: The appellate court highlighted its inability to review issues not part of the trial court record, such as the governmental versus corporate distinction not raised at trial.

Reasoning: The appellate court emphasizes that it can only review issues that were part of the trial court's record.

Scope of Waiver Clauses in Tribal Charters

Application: The appellate court interpreted the charter's waiver clause broadly, allowing lawsuits against the tribe irrespective of specific property pledge in agreements.

Reasoning: The court notes that the first clause of paragraph No. 5(i) serves as a general waiver of sovereign immunity for lawsuits against the Community.

Tribal Sovereign Immunity and Waiver

Application: The court determined that a 'sue and be sued' clause within a tribal corporate charter can constitute an express waiver of tribal sovereign immunity.

Reasoning: The trial court found that the 'sue and be sued' clause in the tribal corporate charter constituted a waiver of this immunity.

Waiver of Sovereign Immunity in Tribal Documents

Application: The court upheld that waiver of sovereign immunity can be established through explicit provisions in tribal documents, even if not repeated in specific agreements such as leases.

Reasoning: The decision reinforces the principle that while tribes generally enjoy sovereign immunity, it can be waived through explicit provisions in tribal documents.