Me. Rev. Stat. » Title 30

Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 30, § 6202

Legislative findings and declaration of policy

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ME-LEGlegislature.maine.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
The Legislature finds and declares the following.   [PL 1979, c. 732, §§1, 31 (NEW).]
The Passamaquoddy Tribe, the Penobscot Nation and the Houlton Band of Maliseet Indians are asserting claims for possession of large areas of land in the State and for damages alleging that the lands in question originally were transferred in violation of the Indian Trade and Intercourse Act of 1790, 1 Stat. 137, or subsequent reenactments or versions thereof.   [PL 1979, c. 732, §§1, 31 (NEW).]
Substantial economic and social hardship could be created for large numbers of landowners, citizens and communities in the State, and therefore to the State as a whole, if these claims are not resolved promptly.   [PL 1979, c. 732, §§1, 31 (NEW).]
The claims also have produced disagreement between the Indian claimants and the State over the extent of the state's jurisdiction in the claimed areas. This disagreement has resulted in litigation and, if the claims are not resolved, further litigation on jurisdictional issues would be likely.   [PL 1979, c. 732, §§1, 31 (NEW).]
The Indian claimants and the State, acting through the Attorney General, have reached certain agreements which represent a good faith effort on the part of all parties to achieve a fair and just resolution of those claims which, in the absence of agreement, would be pursued through the courts for many years to the ultimate detriment of the State and all its citizens, including the Indians.   [PL 1979, c. 732, §§1, 31 (NEW).]
The foregoing agreement between the Indian claimants and the State also represents a good faith effort by the Indian claimants and the State to achieve a just and fair resolution of their disagreement over jurisdiction on the present Passamaquoddy and Penobscot Indian reservations and in the claimed areas. To that end, the Passamaquoddy Tribe and the Penobscot Nation have agreed to adopt the laws of the State as their own to the extent provided in this Act. The Houlton Band of Maliseet Indians and its lands will be wholly subject to the laws of the State.   [PL 1979, c. 732, §§1, 31 (NEW).]
It is the purpose of this Act to implement in part the foregoing agreement.   [PL 1979, c. 732, §§1, 31 (NEW).]
SECTION HISTORY
PL 1979, c. 732, §§1,31 (NEW).
The Revisor's Office cannot provide legal advice or interpretation of Maine law to the public.
If you need legal advice, please consult a qualified attorney.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 7 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1997–2021 · leading case: Penobscot Nation v. Mills
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Penobscot Nation v. Mills (2017) ca1 · cites it 2× “Supra Section I; 30 M.R.S.A. §§ 6202, 6204. Section 6204 of the MIA is - 56 - even entitled "Laws of the State to apply to Indian Lands.”
Houlton Band of Maliseet Indians v. Boyce (1997) me · cites it 2× “The Band contends that the court properly declined to adjudicate these intratribal disputes and granted a summary judgment only on issues regarding public order, over which the court has jurisdiction pursuant to 30 M.R.S.A. §§ 6202, 6204 and 25 U.S.C. § 1725 (a).”
Shannon v. Houlton Band of Maliseet Indians (1999) med “§ 1725 (a), (b)(1), (d)(1), (d)(4)(C)(ii) (1994); Me.Rev.Stat. Ann. tit. 30, §§ 6202, 6204, 6206, 6206-A (1996).”
Aroostook Band of Micmacs v. Ryan (2005) med “See 30 M.R.S.A. § 6202. It did include the anti-modification requirement.”
Boudman v. Aroostook Band of Micmac Indians (1999) med “Me.Rev.Stat.Ann. tit. 30, § 6202 (1996) (emphasis added).”
United States v. Frey (2021) ca1 “" Me. Rev. Stat. Ann. tit. 30, § 6202 ; see 25 U.”
State of Maine v. Bear (2018) mesuperct “Although the MIA did not extend benefits to the Houlton Band of Maliseet and the Houlton Band was not a party to the land settlement between the State, the Passamaquoddy, and the Penobscot, Congress did extend federal recognition to the Houlton Band of Maliseet and provided…”
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.