25 C.F.R. § 502.12
Indian lands
Indian lands means:
(a) Land within the limits of an Indian reservation; or
(b) Land over which an Indian tribe exercises governmental power and that is either—
(1) Held in trust by the United States for the benefit of any Indian tribe or individual; or
(2) Held by an Indian tribe or individual subject to restriction by the United States against alienation.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 10
cases, 1993–2018 · leading case: Nebraska Ex Rel. Bruning v. United States Dep't of Interior, 625 F.3d 501 (8th Cir. 2010).
Nebraska Ex Rel. Bruning v. United States Dep't of Interior, 625 F.3d 501 (8th Cir. 2010). “§ 2703 (4); see also 25 C.F.R. § 502.12 . Here, none of the parties dispute that Carter Lake is trust land and therefore meets the definition of "Indian land.”
Wyandotte Nation v. Sebelius, 337 F. Supp. 2d 1253 (D. Kan. 2004). “§ 2703 (4)(B); 25 C.F.R. § 502.12 (b). 20 . 25 U.S.C. § 2703 (4).”
New York v. Shinnecock Indian Nation, 523 F. Supp. 2d 185 (E.D.N.Y 2007). “§ 2703 (4); 25 C.F.R. 502.12. IGRA also divides gaming into three classes.”
Match-E-Be-Nash-She-Wish Band of Pottawatomi Indians v. John M. Engler, Governor of the State of Michigan & the State of Michigan, 304 F.3d 616 (6th Cir. 2002). “25 C.F.R. § 502.12 . Thus, under section 2710(d)(7)(A), which specifically refers to section 2710(d)(3)(A), federal jurisdiction seems to depend on “any Indian tribe having jurisdiction over the Indian lands upon which” a casino is to be “conducted.”
Miami Tribe of Oklahoma v. United States, 5 F. Supp. 2d 1213 (D. Kan. 1998). “See 25 C.F.R. § 502.12 . 4 . The First Circuit based its requirement of both jurisdiction and the exercise of governmental *1218 power on IGRA’s provision for gaming "on Indian lands within such tribe's jurisdiction.”
Club One Casino, Inc. v. U.S. Dep't of the Interior, 328 F. Supp. 3d 1033 (E.D. Cal. 2018). “§ 2703 (4)(B) ; 25 C.F.R. § 502.12 (b). The Court will address that argument as well.”
Citizens Against Casino Gambling v. Hogen, 704 F. Supp. 2d 269 (W.D.N.Y. 2010). “§ 2703 (4); see also, 25 C.F.R. § 502.12 . So, under the IGRA, it is not enough that restricted fee land is Indian country over which a tribe can exert primary jurisdiction; to be “Indian land,” the tribe must affirmatively exercise its governmental power.”
Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe v. South Dakota, 830 F. Supp. 523 (D.S.D. 1993). “25 C.F.R. § 502.12 . The sites at Ft. Pierre and Pluma are not within the limits of an Indian reservation.”
Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe v. South Dakota, 3 F.3d 273 (8th Cir. 1993). “25 C.F.R. § 502.12 . The district court explained that the Pluma and Fort Pierre sites do not satisfy part (a); however, the district court decided that it could not determine the status of the sites under part (b) without more facts.”
New Gaming Sys., Inc. v. Nat'l Indian Gaming Comm'n, 896 F. Supp. 2d 1093 (W.D. Okla. 2012). “Citing 25 C.F.R. § 502.12 , the court found the NIGC had taken the “same broad approach to regulation.”
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.