Law Commons^™

Chippewa-Cree Tribe Of The Rocky Boy Reservation Indian Reserved Water Rights Settlement And Water Supply Enhancement Act Of 1999, United States 106th Congress

Native American Water Rights Settlement Project

Federal legislation: Chippewa-Cree Tribe of the Rocky Boy Reservation Indian Reserved Water Rights Settlement and Water Supply Enhancement Act of 1999 (PL 106–163, 113 Stat. 1778) Act approves and ratifies the Water Rights Compact entered into on April 14, 1997, by the Tribe and MT, as modified by this Act. Directs the Secretary of the Interior to execute and implement the Compact. Requires the US, the Tribe, or MT to petition the MT Water Court to enter and approve the proposed decree. Provides an expiration date; a tribal water code. Satisfies any entitlement to Federal Indian reserved water of any …

Crow Tribe, Montana & Us Compact Of 1999, Montana

Native American Water Rights Settlement Project

Settlement & State Legislation: Water Rights Compact Entered into by the State of Montana, the Crow Tribe and the USA (Jun. 22, 1999). (Mont. Code Ann. Sec. 85-20-901) There is no separate Settlement Agreememt. The State Legislation ratifies settlement of Crow water rights. Includes 500,000 a/f/y from Bighorn River, priority of May 7, 1868; 300,000 a/f/y from Bighorn Lake storage but limited to half that amount during low periods. A stream and lake-level management plan to be developed for the Bighorn River. Tribe has surface, GW and storage rights within the Little Bighorn River, Pryor Creek, and Rosebud Creek (to …

Advising Clients To Apologize, Jonathan R. Cohen

UF Law Faculty Publications

The article argues that lawyers should consider the possibility of advising clients to apologize for harms they commit, as in some cases apology may best serve their client's interests. The articles discusses some of the pros and cons to apology in the legal setting, as well as barriers that may inhibit apologies.

San Carlos Apache Tribe Water Rights Settlement Agreement Of 1999, San Carlos Apache Tribe Et Al

Native American Water Rights Settlement Project

Settlement Agreement: San Carlos Apache Tribe Water Rights Settlement Agreement (Mar. 30, 1999) Parties: San Carlos Apache Tribe, US, AZ, Salt River Project Agricultural Improvement & Power District, Salt River Valley Water Users Assn., Roosevelt Water Conservation District, Buckeye Irrigation District, Buckeye Water Conservation and Drainage District, Tempe, Chandler, Mesa, Glendale, Scottsdale, Gilbert and Central AZ Water Conservation District. This Settlement Agreement resolves the water rights as between these parties in the Gila Water Rights Adjudication of AZ. Other claims remain to be resolved. Neighboring non-Indian communities will relinquish to approximately 58,735 a/f of surface water to the Tribe, provide …

The Tobacco Litigation And Attorneys' Fees, Daniel J. Capra, Lester Brickman, Michael Ciresi, Barbara S. Gillers, Robert Montgomery

Fordham Law Review

No abstract provided.

Protocols For International Arbitrators Who Dare To Settle Cases, Harold Abramson

Scholarly Works

The best time to settle an international business dispute can be after the international arbitration proceeding has been commenced. Just like in court litigation, parties may be ready to settle only after the adjudicatory process has begun and even has progressed. In court, judges commonly open the door to settlement; they hold settlement conferences and even actively participate in settlement negotiations. But arbitrators rarely open the door to settlement; when they do, they risk losing their jobs. So, what can international arbitrators safely do? What dare they do?

In this article, the author explores the dilemma presented when one neutral …

Ancsa: Sovereignty And A Just Settlement Of Land Claims Or An Act Of Deception, Marilyn J. Ward Ford, Robert Rude

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

A Model For Arbitration: Autonomy, Cooperation And Curtailment Of State Power, Kenneth

Fordham Urban Law Journal

As compared with the formal pleadings, massive discovery, aggressive motion practice, and endless appeals of litigation, arbitration is undoubtedly more efficient as a dispute resolution mechanism. However, efficiency is only one of many advantages of arbitration. Arbitration empowers disputing parties, promotes individual autonomy and cooperation, and curtails the power of government in the process. Still, the state should not wholly limit its involvement in arbitral processes; the courts do and should have a substantial role in determining the enforceability of arbitration agreements and awards in a few select contexts. Overall, courts should enforce arbitration agreements and only limit enforceability that …

Exceptional Circumstances Justifying Vacatur When Lower Court Decision Mooted By Settlement: Repeat Litigants Slide Into Home With Second Circuit Decision - Major League Baseball Properties, Inc. V. Pacific Trading Cards, Inc., S. Kristina Starke

Journal of Dispute Resolution

At heart in the scholarship advocating Alternative Dispute Resolution are two interests: one, that using processes such as negotiation, mediation, and arbitration conserve public and private resources otherwise expended on litigation; and two, that in certain circumstances, these alternative processes may provide better justice than would occur in litigation.' However, once litigation of a case has commenced, and an adverse judgment has been made against one party, that party may not be willing to settle the case unless the adverse judgement is vacated.4 Historically, most state and federal courts would routinely grant vacatur when requested by litigants who settled their …

Rethinking Statutory Antiwaiver Provisions Following The Lloyd's Of London Litigation, Mark J. Loewenstein

Publications

In the Lloyd's of London cases, the United States Courts of Appeals upheld certain forum-selection clauses that effectually deprived investors of the protections of the federal securities laws as if the investors had expressly waived those protections. This article examines statutory antiwaiver provisions in light of the Lloyd's cases, exploring the effect those provisions have on the administration of the federal securities laws, and suggests that the law be amended to allow contractual waiver in certain circumstances.