Great Plains Lending, LLC v. Dep't of Banking

1 Citing case

  1. Comm'r of the N.Y. State Dep't of Transp. v. Polite

    2024 N.Y. Slip Op. 6023 (N.Y. App. Div. 2024)

    We reject the Trustee defendants' contention that we should not rely upon Bay Mills because the Supreme Court's statements about states bringing suits against officials of Native American nations to enforce state law were purportedly mere dicta. Initially, both the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit and the Connecticut Supreme Court have analyzed the relevant language in Bay Mills and concluded that it was not dicta (see Gingras v Think Fin., Inc., 922 F.3d 112; Great Plains Lending, LLC v Department of Banking, 339 Conn 112, 155, 259 A.3d 1128, 1156), although at least one other court has concluded that the same language in Bay Mills was dicta (see Save the Val., LLC v Santa Ynez Band of Chumash Indians, 2015 WL 12552060, *4, 2015 U.S. Dist LEXIS 181545, *9-10 [CD Cal, No. CV 15-02463-RGK (MANx)]). However, we need not decide whether the relevant language in Bay Mills was dicta (see generally Seminole Tribe of Fla. v Florida, 517 U.S. 44, 67 ["When an opinion issues for the Court, it is not only the result but also those portions of the opinion necessary to that result by which we are bound"]).