071628P.pdf   05/05/2010  Pearl Cottier  v.  City of Martin
   U.S. Court of Appeals Case No:  07-1628
   U.S. District Court for the District of South Dakota - Rapid City   
   [PUBLISHED] [Colloton, Author, for the Court En Banc]
   Civil case - Voting Rights Act of 1965. For the court's prior opinion in
   the case , see Cottier v. City of Martin, 445 F.3d 1113 (8th Cir. 2006).
   While sitting en banc, the court has authority to overrule a prior panel
   opinion, whether in the same case or in a different case, and since the
   court en banc has not considered the issues decided in Cottier I, the law
   of the case does not preclude consideration of those issues at this stage of
   the case; to the extent a footnote in Robertson Oil Co. v. Phillips
   Petroleum purports to restrict the authority of an en banc court to
   consider a prior panel decision, it is overruled, and the court aligns itself
   with the uniform position of the circuits that an en banc court may
   overrule an erroneous panel opinion filed at an earlier state of the same
   case; in Cottier I the panel erred in reversing the district court's 
   dismissal of the action and in remanding the matter for further proceeding on
   liability and remedy; the panel opinion in Cottier I is set aside in its
   entirety and the district court's judgment on remand is vacated; case
   remanded with directions to dismiss. Judge Smith, with whom Judges
   Murphy, Bye and Melloy join, dissenting.
  
071628P.pdf   12/16/2008  Pearl Cottier  v.  City of Martin
   U.S. Court of Appeals Case No:  07-1628
   U.S. District Court for the District of South Dakota   
   [PUBLISHED] [Smith, Author, with Bye and Colloton, Circuit Judges]
   Civil case - Voting Rights Act. Based on the record presented, the
   district court did not err in finding that the City of Martin's proposed
   ordinance redistricting the city council ward boundaries impermissibly
   diluted Native American votes and violated Section 2 of the Voting
   Rights Act of 1964; given this court's language in a prior appeal in the
   case, the district court reasonably believe it had discretion to adopt
   plaintiff's Plan C for remedying the situation, and the district court did
   not abuse its discretion in adopting the plan which calls for an at-large
   cumulative voting scheme. For the court's prior opinion in the case see
   Cottier v. City of Martin, 445 F.3d 1113 (8th Cir. 2006). Judge Colloton,
   dissenting.