Title: Aircraft Equipment Company v. Kiowa Tribe of Oklahoma
Citation: 1998 OK 126, 70OBJ32, 975 P.2d 450
Docket Number: 
State: Oklahoma
Issuer: Oklahoma Supreme Court
Date: December 22, 1998

Aircraft Equipment Company v. Kiowa Tribe of Oklahoma Annotate this Case Aircraft Equipment Company v. Kiowa Tribe of Oklahoma 1998 OK 126 975 P.2d 450 70 OBJ 32 Case Number: 86184 Decided: 12/22/1998 Modified: 12/22/1998 Mandate Issued: 01/22/1999 Supreme Court of Oklahoma AIRCRAFT EQUIPMENT COMPANY, Appellee/Cross Appellant, vs. THE KIOWA TRIBE OF OKLAHOMA, Appellant/Cross Appellee, WATSON MANAGEMENT GROUP, INC.; KOCH OIL COMPANY, a division of KOCH INDUSTRIES, INC.; AQUILA ENERGY CORPORATION, KERR MCGEE REFINING CORPORATION, ORYX ENERGY CORPORATION, PLAINS LIQUIDS TRANSPORT, INC., SUN COMPANY, INC. (R&M), ASSOCIATED NATURAL GAS, INC., ASSOCIATED TRANSPORT AND TRADING COMPANY, SENEX PIPE LINE COMPANY, and HAMON OPERATING COMPANY, Appellees. APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT, OKLAHOMA COUNTY, THE HONORABLE JOHN M. AMICK, DISTRICT JUDGE ¶0 On remand from the United States Supreme Court we 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 hold that our earlier opinion be overruled and that judgment must be entered for Tribe. JUDGMENT OF THE DISTRICT COURT REVERSED; CASE REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS William J. Robinson, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, for Appellee and Cross-Appellant, Aircraft Equipment Company. Sheila D. Tims, R. Brown Wallace, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, for Appellant, The Kiowa Tribe of Oklahoma. Janis Preslar, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, for Appellees, Aquila Energy Corporation, The Home-Stake Royalty Corp., Sun Co., Inc. (R&M), and Associated Natural Gas, Inc., Associated Transport & Trading Co. Jonathan E. Miller, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, for Appellee, Kerr-McGee Corp. Dwight W. Birdwell, Ronald J. Pool, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, for Appellee, Plains Liquids Transport, Inc. SUMMERS, V.C.J.: ¶1 This Court issued an opinion in this case on May 6, 1997. By that opinion the Court affirmed a judgment of the District Court of Oklahoma County in favor of Aircraft Equipment Company on its petition for a creditor's bill to satisfy an earlier - affirmed money judgment against the Kiowa Tribe. Aircraft Equipment Co. v. Kiowa Tribe of Oklahoma, 1997 OK 62, 939 P.2d 1143 . The Tribe sought certiorari. ¶2 [975 P.2d 451] On June 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: 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 present case arose out of a post-judgment action in state court, initiated by Aircraft Equipment Company to satisfy a money judgment against the Kiowa Tribe for default on a note. The first action, in which Aircraft obtained a money judgment, had earlier been affirmed by this Court. Aircraft Equipment Co. v. Kiowa Tribe of Oklahoma, 921 P.2d 359 (Okla. 1996) (hereinafter Aircraft I). Then Aircraft brought this second action seeking equitable relief in the form of a creditor's bill, in order to satisfy the money judgment, which this Court affirmed in its opinion referred to in the opening paragraph above (hereinafter Aircraft II). It is this second action that is before us now on remand from the United States Supreme Court. ¶4 In Aircraft II, 939 P.2d 1145, the Tribe asked that the money judgment and the creditor's relief be reversed on the basis of tribal sovereign immunity. But this Court noted that the money judgment had already been affirmed, and reasoned that a state court which has authority to render a judgment also has the authority to enforce the judgment. Id. at 1148. ¶5 After the opinion in Aircraft II the United States Supreme Court decided Kiowa Tribe of Oklahoma v. Manufacturing Technologies, Inc., 523 U.S.----, 118 S. Ct. 1700 (1998), revisiting the concept of Indian tribal immunity from suit. There, the High 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. Although the Court noted certain circumstances in which a state may apply its substantive law, the Court concluded that this does not always include the right to enforce a judgment: In Potawatomi [Oklahoma Tax Commission v. Citizen Band Potawatomi Indian Tribe of Oklahoma, 498 U.S. 505 (1991)], for example, we reaffirmed that while Oklahoma may tax cigarette sales by a Tribe's store to nonmembers, the Tribe enjoys immunity from a suit to collect unpaid state taxes. There is a difference between the right to demand compliance with state laws and the means available to enforce them. Id. ¶6 This recent Supreme Court decision dictates that this Court's opinion in Aircraft II be overruled. We so hold. The U.S. Supreme Court has vacated the judgment of the District Court. On remand from the U.S. Supreme Court we in turn remand the cause to the District Court of Oklahoma County with instructions to enter judgment for the Tribe on Aircraft Equipment Company's petition for a creditor's bill. ¶7 KAUGER, C.J., SUMMERS, V.C.J., LAVENDER, SIMMS, JJ. - concur. ¶8 HODGES, J., concurs in deference to mandate of Kiowa Tribe v. Manufacturing Technologies, Inc., 118 S. Ct. 1700 (1998). ¶9 WATT, J. - concurs by reason of stare decisis. ¶10 HARGRAVE, J. - concurs in result. ¶11WILSON, J. - dissents and is joined by OPALA, J. [975 P.2d 452] ALMA WILSON, J., with whom OPALA, J., joins, dissenting: ¶1 Remand of this cause to the district court for entry of judgment in favor of The Kiowa Tribe of Oklahoma is inappropriate and premature. Accordingly, I must respectfully dissent. ¶2 Kiowa Tribe of Oklahoma v. Manufacturing Technologies, Inc., 523 U.S. ____, 118 S. Ct. 1700, 1705, 140 L. Ed. 2d 981 (1998), recognized that tribal immunity is an unsound doctrine,1but declined to revisit the case law.2 Manufacturing Technologies rejected the request that the doctrine of tribal immunity be confined to on-reservation, non-commercial activities3 and pronounced an expansion of its rule of tribal immunity to include commercial activities off the reservation: "Tribes enjoy immunity from suits on contracts, whether those contracts involve governmental or commercial activities and whether they were made on or off a reservation. Congress has not abrogated this immunity, nor has petitioner waived it, so immunity governs this case." Manufacturing Technologies ¶3 This is an equitable cause, Oklahoma County District Court case No. CJ-94-2522, brought to enforce the summary judgment affirmed in Aircraft Equipment Company v. The Kiowa Tribe of Oklahoma, 1996 OK 81, 921 P.2d 359 (Aircraft I). Aircraft I was an appeal out of Oklahoma District Court case No. CJ-92-10176. There is a subsequent appeal out of that same district court case, appeal No. 85,272 which is a pending appeal from a post-judgment garnishment order. Preliminary to dismissal of this cause,4 appeal No. 85,272 should be considered by this Court. Therein this Court can determine whether the-law-of-the-case operates as a manifest injustice5 and whether to remand the cause for further consideration of the issue of waiver of tribal immunity.6 Only [ 975 P.2d 453 ] then, would it be appropriate to consider whether the district court has the equitable power7 to enforce the judgment rendered in Aircraft I. Because appeal No. 85,975 is a pending related appeal from an order allowing disinterested stakeholders to interplead funds, out of the same equitable cause in Oklahoma County District Court, No. CJ-94-2522, I would make it a companion to this appeal and hold both appeals in abeyance pending our disposition of appeal No. 85,272. ¶4 Even though the authority of a decision is not lessened by its failure to give grounds for its decision,8 I would give Manufacturing Technologies no more than the strictest of application. In each of the appeals pending before this Court that are affected by Manufacturing Technologies, I would resist any ruling that may spill outside the confines of the specific appeal. FOOT