25 C.F.R. § 522.1

Scope of this part

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

This part applies to any class II or class III gaming ordinance or resolution, or amendment thereto adopted by a tribe.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 4 cases, 2002–2011 · leading case: Guidiville Band of Pomo Indians v. NGV Gaming, Ltd., 531 F.3d 767 (9th Cir. 2008).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Guidiville Band of Pomo Indians v. NGV Gaming, Ltd., 531 F.3d 767 (9th Cir. 2008). · cites it 2× “Here there was no "tribal ordinance or resolution" (note that the statute's implementing regulations likewise refer to "gaming ordinance or resolution adopted by a tribe ") (see 25 C.F.R. § 522.1 (emphasis added)). That language simply does not speak to contracts *783 entered…”

Kizis v. Morse Diesel Int'l, Inc., 794 A.2d 498 (Conn. 2002). “§ 2710 (d) (1) (A) (1994) and 25 C.F.R. § 522.1 et seq. (approval requirements).”

Neighbors of Casino San Pablo v. Salazar, 773 F. Supp. 2d 141 (D.D.C. 2011). “§ 2710 ; see also 25 C.F.R. § 522.1 et seq. As a result, the NIGC has no duty to make specific game determinations and Counts VI and VII fail to state a claim.”

Guidiville Band v. Ngv Gaming Lit (9th Cir. 2008). “Here there was no “tribal ordinance or resolution” (note that the statute’s implementing regulations likewise refer to “gaming ordinance or resolution adopted by a tribe” (see 25 C.F.R. § 522.1 (emphasis added)). That language simply does not speak to contracts entered into…”

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.