25 C.F.R. § 11.102
What is the purpose of this part?
It is the purpose of the regulations in this part to provide adequate machinery for the administration of justice for Indian tribes in those areas of Indian country where tribes retain jurisdiction over Indians that is exclusive of State jurisdiction but where tribal courts have not been established to exercise that jurisdiction.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 7
cases (3 in the last 5 years), 2001–2024 · leading case: United States v. Michael L. Enas, 255 F.3d 662 (9th Cir. 2001).
United States v. Michael L. Enas, 255 F.3d 662 (9th Cir. 2001). “25 C.F.R. § 11.102 (a) (2000); see also Wheeler, 435 U.”
United States v. Denezpi, 979 F.3d 777 (10th Cir. 2020). “CFR courts exist today “to provide adequate machinery for the administration of justice for Indian tribes in those areas of Indian country where tribes retain jurisdiction over Indians that is exclusive of State jurisdiction but where tribal courts have not been established to…”
Gary C'hair & Rochelle C'hair v. Dist. Court of the Ninth Jud. Dist., State of Wyoming, & John Strohecker, 2015 WY 116 (Wyo. 2015). “See 25 C.F.R. § 11.102 (“It is the purpose of the regulations in this part to provide adequate machinery for the administration of justice for Indian tribes in those areas of Indian country where tribes retain jurisdiction over Indians that is exclusive of State jurisdiction but…”
Perez v. San Diego Cnty. (S.D. Cal. 2021). “” 25 C.F.R. §11.102 . Thus, 22 while Section 11.”
Taverna v. Palmer Twp. (E.D. Pa. 2020). “See 25 C.F.R. § 11.102 . Aside from the fact that the regulation only applies to acts on Native American land and therefore does not apply here, the regulation also does not create an express private right of action.”
Holley v. The United States Dep't of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs (D. Nev. 2024). “” 25 C.F.R. §11.102 . 11 A CFR Court “has civil jurisdiction over any civil action within the territorial jurisdiction of the court where the defendant is an Indian, or other claims provided at least one party is an Indian.”
Channing v. Seneca-Cayuga Nation (N.D. Okla. 2024). “, 25 C.F.R. § 11.102 (noting that the CFR Court provides for the administration of justice in Indian country where tribal courts have not been established); Tillet v.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.