Bordelon v. Tunica Biloxi Indian Tribe of LA
Bordelon v. Tunica Biloxi Indian Tribe of LA, 867 So. 2d 172 (La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2004).
The holding in the court’s own words
After reviewing the law and the evidence, we conclude that the.
Quoted verbatim from the opinion — no paraphrase, nothing generated. Not yet human-reviewed. How we find the holding.
Cited by
- Stephanie Webb v. Paragon Casino La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2004
- Webb v. Paragon Casino 872 So. 2d 641 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2004
Authorities cited
Identified automatically; this list may not be exhaustive.
- Ortego v. TUNICA BILOXI INDIANS OF LA. 865 So. 2d 985
Opinion text
GREMILLION, Judge. The plaintiff, Pamela Bordelon, appeals the judgment of the workers’ compensation judge granting an exception of subject *173 matter jurisdiction in favor of the defendant, Tunica Biloxi Indian Tribe of LA, d/b/a Paragon Casino and Resort, dismissing her workers’ compensation claim with prejudice. Tunica Biloxi filed the exception claiming that it was immune from suit in the Louisiana Department of Labor, Office of Workers’ Compensation, due to its sovereign status as an Indian nation. After reviewing the law and the evidence, we conclude that the.issue in this matter is essentially identical to that raised in our recent decision of Ortego v. Tunica Biloxi Indians of LA, d/b/a Paragon Casino, 03-1001 (La.App. 3 Cir. 2/4/04) , 865 So.2d 985 . Finding our opinion in OHego controlling, we affirm the dismissal of Bordelon’s suit. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the workers’ compensation judge granting Tunica Biloxi’s exception of lack of subject matter jurisdiction is affirmed. The costs of this matter are assessed to the plaintiff-appellant, Pamela Bordelon. AFFIRMED.