<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><!-- generator="WordPress/2.9.2" -->
<rss version="0.92">
<channel>
	<title>BDR LAW</title>
	<link>http://www.bdrlaw.com</link>
	<description>Bledsoe Downes &#38; Rosier, PC</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 01 Mar 2010 16:23:25 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<docs>http://backend.userland.com/rss092</docs>
	<language>en</language>
	
	<item>
		<title>Parchester Village Neighborhood Council v. City of Richmond</title>
		<description><![CDATA[Indian tribe’s casino development did not constitute a &#8220;project&#8221; of city—which entered into municipal services agreement with tribe—under the California Environmental Quality Act where the city had no legal authority over the property upon which the casino was to be situated, and agreement by city to support tribe’s efforts to acquire the land for the [...]]]></description>
		<link>http://www.bdrlaw.com/2010/03/01/parchester-village-neighborhood-council-v-city-of-richmond/</link>
			</item>
	<item>
		<title>Salt River Tribe to add Courtyard Marriott</title>
		<description><![CDATA[The development arm of the Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community announced plans this week to build a 156-room Marriott hotel, the first ever for the company on U.S. tribal land.
Salt River Devco is developing a hotel site southeast of Pima Road and McDonald Drive adjacent to the Chaparral Business Center.
Marriott International will operate the hotel [...]]]></description>
		<link>http://www.bdrlaw.com/2010/02/28/salt-river-tribe-to-add-courtyard-marriott/</link>
			</item>
	<item>
		<title>Disenrollment is not a detention under ICRA</title>
		<description><![CDATA[Disenrollment of plaintiffs from Indian tribe, which resulted in a loss of access to certain facilities, did not pose a severe restraint on plaintiffs’ liberty and therefore did not amount to a detention. Alleged potential threat of future eviction was also insufficient. As federal appellate court lacked jurisdiction to review direct appeals of tribal disenrollment [...]]]></description>
		<link>http://www.bdrlaw.com/2009/12/28/disenrollment-is-not-a-detention-under-icra/</link>
			</item>
	<item>
		<title>Robinson v. US, No. 07-17052</title>
		<description><![CDATA[November 9, 2009:
In an action against the U.S. for encroachment onto plaintiffs&#8217; easement, the dismissal of the action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under the Quiet Title Act is vacated where the district court needed to determine whether plaintiffs could assert jurisdiction under the Federal Tort Claims Act. This case involves land held in [...]]]></description>
		<link>http://www.bdrlaw.com/2009/12/02/robinson-v-us-no-07-17052-9th-cir-nov-2-2009/</link>
			</item>
	<item>
		<title>Gov. Schwarzenegger Signs Compact with the Habematolel Pomo of Upper Lake</title>
		<description><![CDATA[Courtesy of CA Governors office:
Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger today announced the signing of a compact with the Habematolel Pomo of Upper Lake, located in Lake County. The compact follows a similar blueprint of the compacts Governor Schwarzenegger has previously negotiated in that it provides important benefits to the state, protects both employees and patrons and provides [...]]]></description>
		<link>http://www.bdrlaw.com/2009/09/13/gov-schwarzenegger-signs-compact-with-the-habematolel-pomo-of-upper-lake/</link>
			</item>
	<item>
		<title>Tribal Economic Development Bonds</title>
		<description><![CDATA[Tribal Economic Development Bonds – Section 1402 of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (“ARRA”) provides for allocation of $2 billion for tribal economic development bonds.  Tribes are eligible to apply for the first allocation of $1 billion under the ARRA for projects not exceeding $30 million for a broad range of governmental projects to [...]]]></description>
		<link>http://www.bdrlaw.com/2009/06/24/tribal-economic-development-bonds/</link>
			</item>
	<item>
		<title>State Taxation of Tribal Construction Projects</title>
		<description><![CDATA[In Barona v. Yee1 the Ninth Circuit Court of
Appeals (“Court of Appeals”) held that federal law
does not preempt application of California sales tax on
construction materials purchased for a tribal project by
a non-Indian subcontractor from non-Indian vendors,
but delivered to a tribe’s reservation.]]></description>
		<link>http://www.bdrlaw.com/2009/06/10/hello-world/</link>
			</item>
</channel>
</rss>
