Southern Ute Indian Tribe, Doing Business as Red Willow Production Company v. La Plata County, Board of County Commissioners, State of Colorado Fred Klatt, Shirley M. Baty, Frank Joswick, Commissioners of La Plata County, Colorado Ed Murray, Treasurer of La Plata County, Colorado Craig Larson, Assessor of La Plata County, Colorado Colorado, State of Revenue, State of Colorado, Department of Renny Fagan, Executive Director of Department of Revenue, State of Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission of the State of Colorado Susan McCannon Acting Director of the Oil & Gas Conservation Commission, State of Colorado Property Taxation, State of Colorado, Division of Mary Huddleston, Property Tax Administration for the State of Colorado, State of California State of South Dakota State of Utah State of North Dakota Saginaw Chippewa Indian Tribe of Michigan Shoshone and Northern Arapaho Tribes of the Wind River Reservation Council of Energy Resource Tribes Jicarilla Apache Tribe Ute Indian Tribe of the Uintah and O

Citations: 61 F.3d 916; 1995 U.S. App. LEXIS 26620; 1995 WL 427683Docket: 94-1310

Court: Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit; July 20, 1995; Federal Appellate Court

Combined Opinion SummaryCombined Opinion Original

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Unpublished opinions may be cited if they provide persuasive value on a material issue, provided a copy is attached to the citing document or furnished to the court and all parties if cited orally. The case involves the Southern Ute Indian Tribe, represented by Red Willow Production Company, challenging the Board of County Commissioners of La Plata County and various state officials regarding the imposition of ad valorem taxes on properties held by the Tribe within its reservation. The Tribe seeks a declaratory judgment asserting its exemption from such taxes, particularly following the acquisition of property from Conoco, Inc. in January 1993. Although ad valorem taxes for 1992 were assessed and paid by Conoco, the case remains focused on the Tribe's broader claims regarding its properties. The Tribe's complaint includes requests for both preliminary and permanent injunctions against the collection of state or local taxes on its real and personal property, including mineral interests. The district court granted a preliminary injunction preventing the County or State from taxing or encumbering properties owned by the Tribe while the case is being determined.

The district court initially expressed concerns about the ripeness of the Tribe's claim but proceeded to analyze the merits of the case. It determined that, without Congressional action, the County and State cannot directly tax real property interests or mineral interests held by the Tribe. The court highlighted that the only taxes assessed were on property acquired from Conoco, Inc., which Conoco paid, leading to the denial of the County and State's motion to dissolve a preliminary injunction. The court noted that the ripeness issue, while not explicitly presented, could be addressed by the appellate court due to its prudential nature. The doctrine of ripeness requires federal courts to decline to decide cases that have not developed sufficiently for adjudication and to avoid issuing advisory opinions. The trial court pointed out that no specific property of the Tribe had been assessed for taxation, making the issues moot. The Tribe's complaint about threatened taxation lacked the necessary finality for judicial review, as no concrete tax assessments had been made. Additionally, the court emphasized the complexity surrounding the taxability of different parcels of land based on their historical patenting and the unclear status of the Tribe's mineral interests. Overall, the court concluded that delaying the consideration of these taxation issues until an actual assessment occurs does not impose hardship on the parties involved.

The action is deemed not ripe for adjudication, as the Appellants have not taken any actions that have had a concrete impact on the opposing party, leading to the conclusion that the district court erred in granting summary judgment. The appeal is dismissed and remanded with instructions to vacate the previous judgment and dismiss the Complaint without prejudice. 

In dissent, Circuit Judge Henry argues that the district court correctly addressed various issues for efficiency's sake, despite concerns over ripeness. He contends that the threats of ad valorem and mineral taxes on non-trust fee lands are sufficient to establish ripeness, asserting that preventive relief is warranted when injury is impending. He cites a related case where the Ninth Circuit ruled that a tribe did not need to wait for mining to challenge taxes because they were already in effect.

Judge Henry believes the same applies here, as the appellees plan to impose taxes on lands within the Ute Reservation, and the Tribe seeks prospective relief. While he acknowledges some issues may require further analysis, he asserts that the dispute is concrete enough to warrant addressing several issues. The dissent concludes by noting that the order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under specific legal doctrines.