25 C.F.R. § 169.12
How does BIA provide notice to the parties to a right-of-way?
When this part requires BIA to notify the parties of our intent to grant a right-of-way under § 169.107(b) or our determination to approve or disapprove a right-of-way document, and to provide any right of appeal:
(a) For rights-of-way over or across tribal land, we will notify the applicant and the tribe by first class U.S. mail or, upon request, electronic mail; and
(b) For rights-of-way over or across individually owned Indian land, we will notify the applicant and individual Indian landowners by first class U.S. mail or, upon request, electronic mail. If the individually owned land is located within a tribe's jurisdiction, we will also notify the tribe by first class U.S. mail or, upon request, electronic mail.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 6
cases, 1983–2010 · leading case: United States v. Mitchell, 463 U.S. 206 (1983).
United States v. Mitchell, 463 U.S. 206 (1983). “See 25 CFR §§ 169.12 , 169.14 (1983). [28] *224 B In United States v.”
Begay v. Pub. Serv. Co. of NM, 710 F. Supp. 2d 1161 (D.N.M. 2010). “(citing 25 C.F.R. § 169.12 ). The Plaintiffs allege that the Secretary, acting through the BIA’s offices, has breached his fiduciary duties by failing, and continuing to fail: (i) to obtain appraisals; (ii) to require market value as a condition for granting rights-of-way on…”
Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Cmty. v. Rogers, 815 P.2d 900 (Ariz. 1991). “” *534 25 C.F.R. § 169.12 (1990). No right-of-way may be granted across the lands of individual allottees without the consent of a majority of the affected landowners.”
United States v. Yakima Tribal Court, 806 F.2d 853 (9th Cir. 1986). “§ 325 ; 25 C.F.R. §§ 169.12 , 169.13. The constitutional claims must be analyzed separately from the claims based on Hilderbrand’s violation of the federal regulations cited.”
United States v. Yakima Tribal Court of the Yakima Indian Nation & David Ward, Tribal Judge, 794 F.2d 1402 (9th Cir. 1986). “§ 325 ; 25 C.F.R. §§ 169.12 , 169.13. Relying on the Bureau’s admission that Hilderbrand should have secured their consent before undertaking changes, appellants argue that violations of the provisions cited above stripped him and WIP of immunity.”
Navajo Nation v. United States, 68 Fed. Cl. 805 (Fed. Cl. 2005). “See 25 C.F.R. §§ 169.12 ,169.14 (1983). Mitchell II, 463 U.”
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.