TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Ysleta Del Sur Pueblo v. El Paso County Water Improvement District No. 1, Southwestern Bell Telephone Company, Not Party

YSLETA DEL SUR PUEBLO, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. EL PASO COUNTY WATER IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT NO. 1, Defendant-Appellee. Southwestern Bell Telephone Company, Not Party

Ysleta Del Sur Pueblo v. El Paso Cnty. Water Improvement Dist. No. 1, Southwestern Bell Tel. Co., Not Party, 222 F.3d 208 (5th Cir. 2000)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · U.S. Courts of Appeals
Decided
April 10, 2000
Docket
No. 98-51203
Judges
Politz, Wiener, Stewart
Citations
222 F.3d 2082000 WL 11264002000 U.S. App. LEXIS 19015

Opinion — Per Curiam

PER CURIAM:

Plaintiff-Appellant The Ysleta Del Sur Pueblo (“Pueblo”) appeals the district court’s dismissal of its complaint against the El Paso County Water Improvement District No. 1 (“District”) for lack of jurisdiction. The Pueblo argues that 1) the district court erred in determining that the District is the alter ego of the State of Texas and therefore immune to suit pursuant to the Eleventh Amendment, 2) Congress abrogated the State’s Eleventh Amendment immunity in the Indian Non-Intercourse Act, 25 U.S.C. § 177 , and 3) the State, by transacting in the Pueblo’s lands, constructively waived Eleventh Amendment immunity by engaging in an activity regulated by Congress. Southwestern Bell Telephone Company (“Southwestern Bell”) has filed a motion for leave to file an amicus brief out of time, which the District opposes.

We find that Southwestern Bell’s motion is untimely, that the issue Southwestern Bell seeks to address has been adequately briefed by the Pueblo and the District, and that granting Southwestern Bell’s motion would result in the needless delay of this case’s disposition.

See Fed. R. App. P. 29. Accordingly, Southwestern Bell’s motion is denied.

We have reviewed the record and briefs submitted by the parties and find that the Pueblo’s arguments lack merit.

See College Sav. Bank v. Florida Prepaid Postsecondary Educ. Expense Bd., 527 U.S. 666 , 119 S.Ct. 2219, 2226 , 144 L.Ed.2d 605 (1999);

Ysleta Del Sur Pueblo v. Laney, 199 F.3d 281, 286-88 (5th Cir.2000);

Pillsbury Co., Inc. v. Port of Corpus Christi Authority, 66 F.3d 103, 104 (5th Cir.1995);

Kamani v. Port of Houston Authority, 702 F.2d 612, 613 (5th Cir.1983).

AFFIRMED.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

2001: 12012: 120012026peak 2001 · 1

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 4

DepthCaseCited by
Coll. Sav. Bank v. Fla. Prepaid Postsecondary Educ. Expense Bd., 527 U.S. 666 (1999) 1,261
Kamani v. Port of Houston Auth., 702 F.2d 612 (5th Cir. 1983) 36
Ysleta Del Sur Pueblo v. Laney, 199 F.3d 281 (5th Cir. 2000) 25
The Pillsbury Co. v. The Port of Corpus Christi Auth., 66 F.3d 103 (5th Cir. 1995) 8

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list