Minnesota Supreme Court, 1983

Minnesota Chippewa Tribe v. State, Department of Labor & Industry

Minnesota Supreme Court · Decided October 14, 1983 · Todd

339 N.W.2d 55; 1983 Minn. LEXIS 1312 (North Western Reporter, Second Series)

Counsel

Kent P. Tupper, Walker, and Bernard P. Becker, St. Paul, for appellants., Hubert H. Humphrey, III, Atty. Gen., Thomas G. Lockhart, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., St. Paul, for respondent State of Minn., Jacob E. Forsman, Compensation Attorney, State of Minn., St. Paul, for interve-nor-respondent Michael C. Tibbets.

Can I rely on this case?

Citation treatment has not been reviewed for this case. The notes below come from the citation graph and the Minnesota Revisor's amendment records, not from a review of how later courts treated this decision.

(as of 9/30/2026)

Last cited by a Minnesota appellate court in 2011, among the opinions in this site’s citation index.

Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

See our Terms of Use before relying on these notes. Report an error

Cases that cite this one

3 later published cases cite this decision.

ADVANCED DELIVERY SYSTEMS, INC. v. Jaime (Minn. Ct. App. 2009)
McCaughtry v. City of Red Wing (Minn. 2011)
Tibbetts v. Leech Lake Reservation Business Committee (Minn. 1986)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion

TODD, Justice.

This is an action for a declaratory judgment brought by the Minnesota Chippewa Tribe (Tribe) and its six constituent bands. They seek a declaration that they are not involuntarily subject to Minnesota Workers’ Compensation laws, and that they have sovereign immunity from claims and suits brought by their employees under those compensation statutes. Compensation claims were pending against two of the bands. The trial court dismissed the action on the grounds that the matter was not ripe for judicial attention, and remanded the matter to the workers’ compensation court. We reverse.

We hold that the existence of pending workers’ compensation claims against two of the six bands comprising the Tribe is not grounds for dismissal of the declaratory judgment action brought by the Tribe. The basic issue is whether or not the Workers’ Compensation Act applies to the Tribe. This is a proper subject for declaratory judgment and judicial economy would dictate that the proceedings under the compensation act would await outcome of the declaratory judgment action.

We reverse and remand to the trial court for trial on all issues raised by the parties.

Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.