SEMINOLE POLICE DEPARTMENT AND SERGEANT D.B. MARSHALL OF THE SEMINOLE POLICE DEPARTMENT, PETITIONERS,
v.
RAMON CASADELLA, FIDEL MORGADO AND LAZARO ALFONSO, RESPONDENTS
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The Seminole Police Department and Sergeant Marshall sought certiorari review of a trial court's denial of their motion to dismiss a wrongful arrest complaint. The court held that the Seminole Police Department, as a subordinate economic organization of the Seminole Tribe of Florida, is entitled to sovereign immunity that cannot be waived by a state or waived by accepting state statutory benefits.
The Seminole Police Department and Sergeant Marshall are entitled to sovereign immunity as a subordinate economic organization and agent of the Seminole Tribe of Florida. Sovereign immunity cannot be waived by a state or by accepting state statutory benefits; it can only be waived by the tribe itself and/or the United States Government.
[1] Indian tribes possess the common-law immunity from suit traditionally enjoyed by sovereign powers.
[2] Sovereign immunity of an Indian Tribe and its subordinate economic units can only be waived by the tribe itself and/or the United States Government.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“Indian tribes have long been recognized as possessing the common-law immunity from suit traditionally enjoyed by sovereign powers. This aspect of tribal sovereignty, like all others, is subject to the superior and plenary control of Congress. But "without congressional authorization," the "Indian Nations are exempt from suit."”
Establishes the foundational principle that Indian tribes possess sovereign immunity subject only to Congressional control, not state law
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe Seminole Police Department and Sergeant D.B. Marshall, an agent of that department, were sued in wrongful arrest litigation. The Seminole Police D…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Sovereign Immunity Of Indian Tribes cases and more on FLexlaw
BARKETT, Judge.
Petitioners, the Seminole Police Department and Sergeant D.B. Marshall of the Seminole Police Department, petition us for writ of common law certiorari.
Both parties agree that petitioner, Seminole Police Department, is a subordinate economic organization of the Seminole Tribe of Florida and that petitioner, Sergeant Marshall, is an agent of the Seminole Police Department. Petitioners were sued in the trial court in an action arising from an alleged wrongful arrest.
Petitioners filed a motion to dismiss the complaint asserting, inter alia, that as a derivative economic organization and agent of the Seminole Tribe of Florida they were immune from suit under the doctrine of sovereign immunity. The trial court erroneously denied the motion to dismiss.
Respondents recognize that “an Indian Tribe is a dependent sovereign not subject to the jurisdiction of the courts of this state absent its consent or the consent of Congress.” White Mountain Apache Indian Tribe v. Shelley, 107 Ariz. 4, 480 P. 2d 654, 655 (1971). See also Ramey Construction Company v. Apache Tribe of Mescalero Reservation, 673 F. 2d 315 (10th Cir.1982). They argue, however, that petitioners waived their right to sovereign immunity by accepting the benefits of sections 285.16 and 285.18, Florida Statutes (1983). We cannot agree that this constitutes a waiver of sovereign immunity. Immunity of the Seminole Tribe and its subordinate economic units can only be waived by the tribe itself and/or the United States Government. A state cannot waive or limit an Indian Tribe’s immunity. In the landmark decision Santa Clara Pueblo v. Martinez, 436 U.S. 49, 58-59, 98 S.Ct. 1670, 1677, 56 L.Ed.2d 106 (1978), the United States Supreme Court held:
Indian tribes have long been recognized as possessing the common-law immunity from suit traditionally enjoyed by sovereign powers. This aspect of tribal sovereignty, like all others, is subject to the superior and plenary control of Congress. But “without congressional authorization,” the “Indian Nations are exempt from suit.”
It is settled that a waiver of sovereign immunity “ ‘cannot be implied but must be unequivocally expressed.’ ” [Citations omitted.]
Accordingly, we grant the writ and quash the order of the trial court with directions to dismiss the complaint against petitioners.
DOWNEY and GLICKSTEIN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Seminole Tribe OF Florida v. McCOR, 903 So. 2d 353 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005)…to subject matter jurisdiction raised by Indian tribes asserting tribal immunity have regularly been made by way of motions to dismiss. See Seminole Tribe v. Houghtaling, 589 So. 2d 1030, 1031 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991); Seminole Police Dep’t v. Casadella, 478 So. 2d 470, 471 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985). We therefore conclude that it was proper for the trial court to consider the Tribe’s motion to dismiss with the accompanying affidavits and not appropriate to consider the motion for summary judgment. But see Mancher v. Sem…
-
Mancher v. Seminole Tribe OF Fla., Inc., 708 So. 2d 327 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998)…based on lack of subject matter jurisdiction may properly go beyond the four corners of the complaint when it raises solely a question of law. See Houghtaling v. Seminole Tribe of Fla., 611 So. 2d 1235 (Fla.1993); Seminole Police Dept. v. Casadella, 478 So. 2d 470, 471 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985). The questions presented in this case were inherently factual, not legal. We recognize that a court may consider affidavits when determining a motion to dismiss under very limited circumstances. These include a challenge of…
-
Houghtaling v. Seminole Tribe OF Florida, 611 So. 2d 1235 (Fla. 1993)…So. 2d 877 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985), the Fourth District Court of Appeal held that circuit courts lacked subject matter jurisdiction in cases involving the taxation of Indian ventures on Indian land. Similarly, in Seminole Police Department v. Casadella, 478 So. 2d 470 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985), the Fourth District held that, absent the Tribe’s consent, Florida courts lacked subject matter jurisdiction in a case involving a wrongful arrest by tribal police. In both cases, the court held that Public Law 83-280 and sectio…
Previewing 3 of 8 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Santa Clara Pueblo v. Martinez, 436 U.S. 49 (U.S. 1978)
- Ramey Constr. Co., Inc. v. The Apache Tribe OF the Mescalero Reservation, 673 F.2d 315 (10th Cir. 1982)