Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): 1176 (D.S.D. 2012); Ransom v. St. Regis Mohawk Educ. & Cmty. Fund, Inc., 658 N.E.2d 989, 993 (N.Y. 1995). It appears that being incorporated under State law rather than tribal law “militate[s] against sovereign immunity”. J.L. Ward Assocs., 842 F. Supp. 2d at 1176. 15 See Somerlott v. Cherokee Nation Distribs., Inc., 686 F.3d 1144, 1150 (10th Cir. 2012) (“a separate legal entity organized under the laws of another sovereign, Oklahoma, cannot share in the Nation’s [i.e., the tribe’s] immunity from suit”). 16 See Hagen v. Sisseton-Wahpeton Cmty. Coll., 205 F.3d 1040, 1043 (8th Cir. 2000) (“[T]he College serves as an arm of the tribe and not as a mere business and is thus entitled to tribal sovereign immunity”); Dillon v. Yankton Sioux Tribe Hous. Auth., 144 F.3d 581, 583 (8th Cir. 1998) (<HOLDING>); Weeks Constr., Inc. v. Oglala Sioux Hous. 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that an inn which was a subentity of the tribe rather than a separate corporate entity enjoyed tribal immunity (B) holding that disputes involving questions of interpretation of a tribal constitution and tribal law is not within the jurisdiction of the district court (C) holding that federal courts do not have jurisdiction to interpret a tribal constitution or tribal laws (D) holding that the tribes housing authority was exempt from the adea a general statute because the tribal entity was not just a business but also functioned as an arm of tribal government by providing housing to tribe members (E) holding that a tribal housing authority established by tribal council pursuant to its powers of selfgovernment was a tribal agency rather than a separate corporate entity created by the tribe
Output (English): holding that the tribes housing authority was exempt from the adea a general statute because the tribal entity was not just a business but also functioned as an arm of tribal government by providing housing to tribe members