Title: Hoover v. Kiowa Tribe of Oklahoma
Citation: 1999 OK 61, 70OBJ2088, 986 P.2d 516
Docket Number: 
State: Oklahoma
Issuer: Oklahoma Supreme Court
Date: June 29, 1999

Hoover v. Kiowa Tribe of Oklahoma Annotate this Case Hoover v. Kiowa Tribe of Oklahoma 1999 OK 61 986 P.2d 516 70 OBJ 2088 Case Number: 87139 Decided: 06/29/1999 Mandate Issued: 07/29/1999 Supreme Court of Oklahoma Robert M. HOOVER, JR., Appellee, v. The KIOWA TRIBE of OKLAHOMA, Appellant. APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT IN OKLAHOMA COUNTY THE HONORABLE JAMES E. BLEVINS, DISTRICT JUDGE ¶0 On remand from the United States Supreme Court we are directed to consider the impact of Kiowa Tribe of Oklahoma v. Manufacturing Technologies, Inc., 118 S. Ct. 1700 (1998) upon our prior opinion in this case. We conclude that our earlier opinion is inconsistent with that U.S. Supreme Court's opinion. The judgment in favor of appellee has previously been vacated by the High Court. Our earlier opinion in this cause is thus overruled, and the case remanded with instructions to enter judgment for the Tribe. MANDATE RECALLED; JUDGMENT OF THE DISTRICT COURT REVERSED; CASE REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS William J. Robinson, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, for Appellee and Cross-Appellant R. Brown Wallace, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, Appellant and Cross-Appellee SUMMERS, C.J.: ¶1 This Court issued an opinion in this case on April 13, 1998. Consistent with an earlier opinion resolving a contractual [986 P.2d 517] dispute between the same parties in favor of the Plaintiff/Hoover and against the Defendant/Tribe, that earlier case being known as Hoover v. Kiowa Tribe of Oklahoma, ¶2 On October 8, 1998 the Clerk of the Supreme Court of the United States mailed to the Clerk of this Court a file-stamped copy of the following order with respect to this case, or Hoover II. The petition for a writ of certiorari is granted. The judgment is vacated and the case is remanded to the Supreme Court of Oklahoma for further consideration in light of Kiowa Tribe of Oklahoma v. Manufacturing Technologies, Inc., 523 U.S. ------ (1998). Upon reconsideration we overrule our earlier opinion and remand to the trial court. ¶3 The case arose out of an action in state court, initiated by Hoover against the Kiowa Tribe for default on a note. In the first action the trial court dismissed the action on the basis of tribal sovereign immunity. This Court reversed, holding that state courts have jurisdiction over Indian Tribes in contract disputes where the contract was executed outside of Indian country between a tribe and a non-Indian. Hoover I, supra. On remand to the trial court after this Court's opinion in Hoover I, the trial court granted summary judgment to Hoover on his promissory note. The Tribe appealed, and we retained the case. ¶4 In the second opinion, Hoover v. Kiowa Tribe of Oklahoma, ¶5 After Hoover II was decided by us the United States Supreme Court decided Kiowa Tribe of Oklahoma v. Manufacturing Technologies, Inc., 523 U.S.----, 118 S. Ct. 1700 (1998), granting certiorari to review an unpublished Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals opinion that had relied on Hoover I in holding against the Tribe . The Supreme Court there revisited the concept of Indian tribal immunity from suit. With facts nearly identical to the facts in the case at bar, an obligee brought suit in state court to recover on a promissory note executed by the Tribe. The Tribe moved to dismiss based on tribal sovereign immunity from suit. There the U.S. Supreme Court held that "[a]s a matter of federal law, an Indian tribe is subject to suit only where Congress has authorized the suit or the tribe has waived its immunity." Id. at 1702. The Court further noted that thus far, no distinction has been drawn as to whether the activity is commercial or governmental. Id. "[T]ribal immunity is a matter of federal law and is not subject to diminution by the States." Id. At 1702. "As sovereigns or quasi-sovereigns, the Indian nations enjoyed immunity 'from judicial attack' absent consent to be sued." Id. at 1703, quoting United States v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co., ¶6 This recent U.S. Supreme Court decision dictates that this Court's earlier opinion in Hoover II be overruled. ¶7 SUMMERS, C.J., LAVENDER, KAUGER, JJ. - Concur ¶8 SIMMS, WATT, JJ. - Concur in Deference to Stare Decisis ¶9 HARGRAVE, V.C.J., HODGES, OPALA, WILSON, JJ. - Dissent FOOT