U.S. Code » Title 25 » Chapter CHAPTER 14— MISCELLANEOUS › Subchapter SUBCHAPTER LXXV— MISSISSIPPI SIOUX TRIBES: DISTRIBUTION OF JUDGMENT FUND › Part Part A— 1972 Distribution Authority

25 U.S.C. § 1300d

Omitted

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 25 CasesGoogle Scholar

[omitted]

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 10 cases, 1988–2007 · leading case: LeBeau v. United States, 171 F. Supp. 2d 1009 (D.S.D. 2001).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
LeBeau v. United States, 171 F. Supp. 2d 1009 (D.S.D. 2001). · cites it 3× “1168 (codified at 25 U.S.C. § 1300d, et seq. (1983) (amended 1998)).”
LeBeau v. United States, 215 F. Supp. 2d 1046 (D.S.D. 2002). · cites it 2× “1168 (codified at 25 U.S.C. § 1300d, et seq. (1983) (amended 1998)).”
Sisseton-Wahpeton Sioux Tribe of the Lake Traverse Indian Reservation v. United States, 686 F. Supp. 831 (D. Mont. 1988). · cites it 2× “At issue is the Act of October 25, 1972 (25 U.S.C. §§ 1300d, et seq.), which provided for distribution of a congressionally appropriated fund of money to the Sisseton and Wahpeton Tribes of Sioux Indians in satisfaction of a compromise judgment entered by the Indian Claims…”
Lebeau v. United States, 474 F.3d 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2007). “25 U.S.C. § 1300d (2000). In the 1998 Amendments, Congress reallocated 28.”
Sisseton-Wahpeton Sioux Tribe v. United States, 90 F.3d 351 (9th Cir. 1996). “In fact, the Act explicitly allows the Secretary to include nonmembers who have not identified an ancestor alive before 1862, as long as the name of the nonmember or of a lineal ancestor is on a list acceptable to the Secretary.”
Lebeau v. United States, 222 F.R.D. 613 (D.S.D. 2004). · cites it 3× “1168 (codified at 25 U.S.C. § 1300d, et seq. (1983) (amended 1998)).”
Lebeau v. United States, 115 F. Supp. 2d 1172 (D.S.D. 2000). “1168 (codified at 25 U.S.C. § 1300d, et seq.). Plaintiffs are lineal descendants who have been determined to be eligible to share in the distribution pursuant to the 1972 Act, but who to this day have not received any distribution of funds under the 1972 Act.”
LeBeau v. United States, 334 F. Supp. 2d 1200 (D.S.D. 2004). · cites it 2× “1168 (codified at 25 U.S.C. § 1300d, et seq. (1983) (amended 1998)).”
Loudner v. United States, 330 F. Supp. 2d 1074 (D.S.D. 2004). “1168 (codified at 25 U.S.C. § 1300d, et seq. (1983) (amended 1998)).”
Loudner v. United States, 170 F. Supp. 2d 926 (D.S.D. 2001). · cites it 2× “Moreover, plaintiffs claim that the Tribes’ failure to participate in the Secretary’s rule-making process for the implementation of 25 U.S.C. § 1300d — 26(c) precludes the Tribes from challenging the Secretary’s use of the rolls listed in that statute to determine eligibility to…”
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.