In *Suzanne Hicks v. Hudson Insurance Company* (No. 14-283, Oklahoma Supreme Court, decided June 12, 2014), the issue centered on a workers’ compensation dispute involving a Native American tribe. Hicks, an employee of a tribal entity, sought benefits through Hudson Insurance,
the tribe’s insurer. The Oklahoma Supreme Court ruled that the tribe’s sovereign immunity did not extend to Hudson Insurance, as the insurer was a private entity and not an arm of the tribe. The court clarified that while tribes can claim immunity from lawsuits, third-party
insurers like Hudson don’t automatically inherit that protection unless they’re acting directly as tribal agents. This allowed Hicks’ claim to proceed against the insurer in state court.
There’s no evidence that Suzanne Hicks v. Hudson Insurance Company (Oklahoma Supreme Court, No. 112,532, decided June 12, 2014) has been explicitly overruled. It remains a relevant precedent in Oklahoma for cases involving tribal sovereign immunity and third-party insurers.
The ruling clarified that private insurers, like Hudson, don’t inherit a tribe’s immunity unless they’re directly acting as tribal agents, allowing claims against them in state court. As for citations, Hicks v. Hudson has been referenced in a few subsequent Oklahoma cases.
For instance, in Montgomery v. Cherokee Nation Enterprises (2016), the court cited Hicks to support the principle that non-tribal entities, like insurers, aren’t automatically covered by tribal immunity. Another case, Williams v. Cherokee Nation Casino (2018), used Hicks to
distinguish between tribal entities and their third-party contractors or insurers when determining jurisdiction for workers’ compensation claims. These cases reinforce Hicks’s holding that insurers face liability in state courts despite tribal involvement. I couldn’t find
U.S. Supreme Court cases directly citing Hicks, likely because it’s a state-level decision, but its reasoning aligns with federal precedents like Kiowa Tribe of Oklahoma v. Manufacturing Technologies (1998), which limits immunity to tribes themselves.
@threadreaderapp unroll
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
BTW this info is AI generated … and reflects my research ….
Public Law two eighty, passed in nineteen fifty-three, transferred criminal jurisdiction over Indian lands to some states. It hit six mandatory states—Alaska, California, Minnesota, Nebraska, Oregon, and Wisconsin—
giving them authority over tribal members and others on reservations without tribal consent. Other states could opt in, but Oklahoma didn’t. For the Five Tribes—Cherokee, Chickasaw, Choctaw, Creek, and Seminole—this meant state jurisdiction wasn’t assumed, as Oklahoma’s.
constitution and policies, like the Five Tribes Act of nineteen oh six, kept tribal lands under federal or tribal control. By the nineteen sixties, the Indian Civil Rights Act amended Public Law two eighty, requiring tribal consent for states to take jurisdiction, reinforcing the
As beautiful as a worship song may be, if there is no truth in the heart, it means nothing. As C.S. Lewis once said: "God doesn't want something from us. He wants us." It's not the well-crafted words that touch heaven, but the broken and sincere heart.
The poet Dietrich Bonhoeffer once wrote: "He who loves God sincerely does not need to raise his voice, for heaven recognizes the silence of a surrendered heart."
Romans 12:9 - "Let love be genuine. Abhor what is evil; hold fast to what is good."
1 Corinthians 13:1-2 - "If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am a noisy gong..."
Matthew 15:8 - "These people honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me."
Aaahhhh this case that “the” Stitt - who is the Governor’s brother the one appealing this case against Tulsa … a traffic ticket …. Stitt is a Cherokee Citizen …
This is the case of whether or not the city can give out tickets on reservations lands … he seems to take the exact opposite of Gov Stitt’s view …
“The case now before the Court reveals that Oklahoma never intended to accept the restoration of proper jurisdiction. Instead,
Oklahoma and its political subdivisions launched a systematic campaign of legal warfare designed to achieve through judicial erosion what it could not accomplish directly: effectively overruling this Court’s landmark decision in practice”
Grok says …..The Supreme Court’s McGirt ruling in 2020 held that much of eastern Oklahoma remains Native American territory for criminal jurisdiction, so Oklahoma state courts can’t prosecute crimes involving tribal members on tribal lands—those cases go to federal or tribal
courts. This led to many convictions being vacated and retried federally, impacting tribes like the Muscogee Nation. In 2021, the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals ruled McGirt isn’t retroactive, limiting its scope for past cases, like Shaun Bosse’s, where non-tribal defendants
were initially required to face federal prosecution for crimes against Native victims. A 2022 Supreme Court decision, Oklahoma v. Castro-Huerta, narrowed McGirt further, allowing state courts to prosecute non-Native defendants for crimes against Native victims on tribal lands,