Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 30, § 6204

Laws of the State to apply to Indian Lands

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ME-LEGlegislature.maine.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Except as otherwise provided in this Act, all Indians, Indian nations, and tribes and bands of Indians in the State and any lands or other natural resources owned by them, held in trust for them by the United States or by any other person or entity shall be subject to the laws of the State and to the civil and criminal jurisdiction of the courts of the State to the same extent as any other person or lands or other natural resources therein. [PL 1979, c. 732, §§ 1, 31 (NEW).]

SECTION HISTORY

PL 1979, c. 732, §§1,31 (NEW).

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 12 cases, 1996–2017 · leading case: Great Northern Paper, Inc. v. Penobscot Nation

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Great Northern Paper, Inc. v. Penobscot Nation (2001) me · cites it 3× “See 30 M.R.S.A. § 6204 (1996). [¶ 32] Both parties understood the general ramifications of the adoption of the municipal model.”

Maine v. Johnson (2007) ca1 · cites it 3× “30 M.R.S.A. § 6204. 4 In this, and in a number of other respects described below, Maine’s power over the southern tribes greatly narrows ordinary tribal sovereignty vis-a-vis state law.”

Penobscot Nation v. Mills (2017) ca1 · cites it 2× “§ 1723 ; 30 M.R.S.A. § 6204. In essence, the Nation became akin to a municipality under Maine law, but one with additional sovereignty over, inter alia, "internal tribal matters," "sustenance fishing," and "hunting and trapping.”

United States v. Boots (1996) ca1 “30 M.R.S.A. § 6204; see also 25 U.S.C. § 1725 (b)(1) (approving the jurisdictional scope set forth in the Maine Implementing Act).”

Aroostook Band of Micmacs v. Ryan (2005) med · cites it 2× “Under the Act — which affected “all Indians, Indian nations, and tribes and bands of Indians in the State,” Me.Rev. Stat. Ann. tit. 30, § 6204, not just the named tribes — the Penobscots and the Passamaquoddy received somewhat *117 more advantageous terms than the Maliseets.”

Houlton Band of Maliseet Indians v. Boyce (1997) me “” 30 M.R.S.A. § 6204 (1996). Finally, Maine’s Act provides that “[t]he Houlton Band of Maliseet Indians and its lands will be wholly subject to the laws of the State.”

Houlton Band of Maliseet Indians v. Maine Human Rights Commission (1997) med “See 30 M.R.S.A. § 6204; 25 U.S.C. §§ 1721 (b)(3)-(4), 1725(a).”

Francis v. Dana-Cummings (2008) me “, 30 M.R.S. §§ 6204, 6206(2) (2007), a state court has no subject matter jurisdiction over internal tribal matters.”

Penobscot Nation v. Mills (2015) med “30 M.R.S. § 6204. Accordingly, members of the public engaged in hunting, Ashing or other recreational activities on the waters of the Penobscot River aré subject to Maine' law as they would be elsewhere in the State, and are not subject to any additional restrictions from the…”

Boudman v. Aroostook Band of Micmac Indians (1999) med “” Me.Rev.Stat.Ann. tit. 30, § 6204 (1996). In Sections 6206 and 6206-A, the Implementing Act clarifies the exception extended to the Passamaquoddy and the Penob-scot.”

Penobscot Nation v. Fellencer (1998) med “30 M.R.S.A § 6204. The Implementing Act clarifies the powers of the Penobscot Nation as those of a municipality, with an exception for “internal tribal matters.”

Great N. Paper, Inc. v. The Penobscot Indian Nation (2000) mesuperct · cites it 3× “§ 1725 ; 30 M.R.S.A. § 6204. “Internal tribal matters,” such as tribal membership, the right to reside in Indian territory, tribal organization, tribal government, tribal elections and the use of the settlement fund, however, are not subject to regulation by the State.”

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.