C.F.R. » Title 25 » CHAPTER I—BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR › SUBCHAPTER I—ENERGY AND MINERALS › PART 211—LEASING OF TRIBAL LANDS FOR MINERAL DEVELOPMENT › Subpart A—General

25 C.F.R. § 211.2

Information collection

Read at: eCFRecfr.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov CasesGoogle Scholar

The information collection requirements contained in this part do not require a review by the Office of Management and Budget under the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501; et seq.).

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 8 cases, 1970–2003 · leading case: United States v. Navajo Nation, 537 U.S. 488 (2003).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
United States v. Navajo Nation, 537 U.S. 488 (2003). · cites it 4× “" 25 CFR § 211.2 (1985). In line with the IMLA itself, the regulations treated oil and gas leases in more detail than coal leases.”
Navajo Nation v. United States, 263 F.3d 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2001). · cites it 8× “See 25 C.F.R. §§ 211.2 , 211.3. The Deputy Assistant Secretary for Indian Affairs considered the matter and reached a decision affirming the 20% rate.”
Shoshone Indian Tribe of Wind River Reservation, Wyoming v. United States, 56 Fed. Cl. 639 (Fed. Cl. 2003). · cites it 4× “7 (1979) (timber) with 25 C.F.R. §§ 211.2 , 211.3 (1988) (oil and gas)).”
Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma v. United States, 21 Cl. Ct. 565 (Ct. Cl. 1990). · cites it 2× “§ 396a and 25 C.F.R. § 211.2 (1989), claimed that plaintiff is the leasing authority, subject only to defendant’s approval.”
Navajo Nation v. United States, 46 Fed. Cl. 217 (Fed. Cl. 2000). “See 25 C.F.R. § 211.2 . As plaintiff explains, the provision is designed to prevent overreaching by those negotiating with Indians and to assure that fair market value is obtained for tribal resources.”
Navajo Nation v. United States, 347 F.3d 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2003). “The regulations require the written permission of the Commissioner of Indian Affairs before a Tribe can enter into negotiations for a lease rather than offer the lease in an advertised sale ( 25 C.F.R. § 211.2 ); the regulations mandate that lessees shall provide a bond or other…”
Scholder v. United States, 428 F.2d 1123 (9th Cir. 1970). “We remand this phase of the case to the district court for a determination of the validity of the charges.”
Alex Scholder v. United States, 428 F.2d 1123 (9th Cir. 1970). “(See 25 C.F.R. 211.2) The imposition of construction charges affects an Indian's 'interests and rights' to his allotment, and he can challenge the validity of charges under section 345.”
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.