Indians — concurrent jurisdiction

Listen to this article

Wisconsin Supreme Court

Civil

Indians — concurrent jurisdiction

Where a court has not clearly discussed on the record the basis for a finding of concurrent jurisdiction and also the statutory factors it is required to consider, transfer to tribal court must be reversed.

“Circuit courts have wide discretion, and their discretionary rulings will not be lightly disturbed. However, this record does not show that the ‘facts of record and law relied upon are stated and are considered together’ in reaching the conclusion that the transfer to tribal court was warranted. Nor was there application of the principles of Plains Commerce Bank or Montana to the facts of record to determine whether concurrent jurisdiction, a requisite condition, existed prior to applying the statute. It is true that facts of record that related to some of the factors from Wis. Stat. § 801.54 were cited by the circuit court, which was focused on the evidence on which Kroner was basing his claims. The circuit court centered its analysis of the motion to transfer on the premise that the tribal court was in the best position to rule on a case where much of the evidence offered to support the contract claims would be tribal materials. However, many statutory factors relevant to a transfer decision were not addressed, such as ‘the timing’ of the motion and ‘matters of process, practice, and procedure.’”

“It is of great assistance for a reviewing court for a circuit court to acknowledge on the record that all the factors have been considered, and specifically note on the record the relevant factors and the importance each is given in making the determination whether to transfer.”

Reversed and Remanded.

2010AP2533 Kroner v. Oneida Seven Generations Corp.

Crooks, J.

Attorneys: For Appellant: Brown, Michael F., Appleton; For Respondent: Schober, Thomas L., Green Bay