McCrary v. Ivanof Bay Village
265 P.3d 337
Alaska2011Background
- The Department of Interior lists Ivanof Bay as a federally recognized tribe since 1982, indicating sovereign status under federal law.
- In 2005 McCrary contracted with Ivanof Bay to oversee land management duties for $1,500 monthly, later cancelling the first contract but allowing storage of his belongings in the tribal building.
- A June 2006 contract made McCrary the lead agent for sustainable economic development; he incurred over $100,000 in expenses with Shangin having personal knowledge.
- September 2006 Shangin cancelled the June contract on Ivanof Bay’s behalf and McCrary could not retrieve his personal property.
- October 2008 McCrary sued Ivanof Bay and Shangin in state court for breaches of the implied covenants; he later added federal defendants in related actions seeking a declaration of lack of federally recognized status.
- The superior court dismissed the suit in 2010 based on sovereign immunity, a ruling McCrary challenged on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Ivanof Bay is a federally recognized tribe. | McCrary argues Ivanof Bay has not been formally designated and thus lacks sovereign immunity. | Ivanof Bay relies on the Department's list showing recognition and our precedent recognizing such tribes as sovereign. | Ivanof Bay is federally recognized; immunity applies. |
| Whether John v. Baker should be overruled regarding tribal sovereignty. | McCrary argues the decision is dictum and should be reconsidered or overruled. | Ivanof Bay contends John v. Baker remains binding precedent recognizing tribal sovereignty under federal law. | John v. Baker remains binding precedent; tribes on the Department list are sovereign. |
| Whether sovereign immunity bars the state-court claims against Ivanof Bay and Shangin. | McCrary contends sovereign immunity does not apply because Ivanof Bay’s status is not formally recognized. | Defendants assert immunity bars suit in state court. | Sovereign immunity merits dismissal; suit is barred. |
Key Cases Cited
- John v. Baker, 982 P.2d 738 (Alaska 1999) ( Alaska tribes on federal lists are sovereign; groundwork for jurisdiction)
- Runyon ex rel. BR. v. Assoc. of Vill. Council Presidents, 84 P.3d 439 (Alaska 2004) (tribes possess common-law immunity from suit)
- VECO, Inc. v. Rosebrock, 970 P.2d 906 (Alaska 1999) (tribal immunity discussion; context for sovereign immunity)
- Gonzales v. Krueger, 799 P.2d 1318 (Alaska 1990) (commentary on preexisting tribal status discussions)
- Thomas v. Anchorage Equal Rights Comm'n, 102 P.3d 937 (Alaska 2004) (principles for interpreting precedent and reliance on doctrine)