25 U.S.C. § 1300g
Omitted
[omitted]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 14
cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1994–2021 · leading case: State of Texas v. Ysleta del Sur Pueblo, 955 F.3d 408 (5th Cir. 2020).
State of Texas v. Ysleta del Sur Pueblo, 955 F.3d 408 (5th Cir. 2020). “100-89 ; 25 U.S.C. § 1300g et seq. The updated United States Code omits the Restoration Act, but as we noted last year, “the Restoration Act is still in effect.”
Texas v. Ysleta Del Sur Pueblo, 220 F. Supp. 2d 668 (W.D. Tex. 2002). “The State sought to shut down the Casino as a nuisance in violation of the Texas Penal Code and the Restoration Act, 25 U.S.C. § 1300g. The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment.”
Holguin Exrel. Rubio v. Ysleta Del Sur Pueblo, 954 S.W.2d 843 (Tex. App. 1997). “The Tribe filed a motion for summary judgment, requesting that the court take judicial notice of its status as a federally recognized Indian tribe, as reflected in 25 U.S.C. § 1300g[the Ysleta Del Sur Restoration Act], It argued that it was immune from Appellant’s civil suit for…”
Alabama-Coushatta Tribes of Texas v. Texas, 208 F. Supp. 2d 670 (E.D. Tex. 2002). “Title I, 25 U.S.C. § 1300g, concerns the Ysleta del Sur Pueblo, and Title II, 25 U.”
Texas v. Ysleta Del Sur Pueblo, 79 F. Supp. 2d 708 (W.D. Tex. 1999). “3d at 1327-28; Ysleta del Sur Pueblo and Alabama and Coushatta Indian Tribes of Texas Restoration Act, 25 U.S.C. § 1300g et seq. (1987) (“Restoration Act”).”
State of Texas v. Ysleta Del Sur Pueblo, 431 F. App'x 326 (5th Cir. 2011). “25 U.S.C. § 1300g. 4 . Id. § 1300g-6(a). 5 .”
Ysleta del Sur Pueblo v. State of Tex., 36 F.3d 1325 (5th Cir. 1994). “Having concluded that neither IGRA nor the Restoration Act, 25 U.S.C. § 1300g, barred the Tribe from engaging in such gambling, the district court granted the Tribe summary judgment.”
State v. Ala. Coushatta Tribe of Tex., 298 F. Supp. 3d 909 (E.D. Tex. 2018). “The Yselta del Sur Pueblo litigation is relevant for consideration because the Yselta del Sur Pueblo Tribe is the only other Texas tribe subject to the same Restoration Act, enacted on August 18, 1987.”
State of Texas v. Ysleta del Sur Pueblo (5th Cir. 2020). “100-89 ; 25 U.S.C. § 1300g et seq. The updated United States Code omits the Restoration Act, but as we noted last year, “the Restoration Act is still in effect.”
State of Texas v. Ysleta del Sur Pueblo (5th Cir. 2020). “100-89 ; 25 U.S.C. § 1300g et seq. The updated United States Code omits the Restoration Act, but as we noted last year, “the Restoration Act is still in effect.”
the State of Texas v. Ramon P. Astorga (Tex. App. 2021). “denied), citing 25 U.S.C. § 1300g- 4 (f) (2000). The Restoration Act expressly provides that: “The State shall exercise civil and criminal jurisdiction within the boundaries of the reservation as if such State had assumed such jurisdiction with the consent of the tribe under…”
State of Texas v. Alabama-Coushatta (E.D. Tex. 2021). “See 25 U.S.C.S. § 1300g et seq. and 25 U.S.C.”
— 25 U.S.C. § 1300g(5) — 1 case
Texas v. Ysleta Del Sur Pueblo, 220 F. Supp. 2d 668 (W.D. Tex. 2002). “The State sought to shut down the Casino as a nuisance in violation of the Texas Penal Code and the Restoration Act, 25 U.S.C. § 1300g. The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment.”
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.