25 U.S.C. § 1300i
Omitted
[omitted]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 17
cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1992–2022 · leading case: Auto. United Trades Org. v. State, 285 P.3d 52 (Wash. 2012).
Auto. United Trades Org. v. State, 285 P.3d 52 (Wash. 2012). “1992) (challenging the constitutionality of the Hoopa-Yurok Settlement Act, 25 U.S.C. § 1300i); Fluent v. Salamanca Indian Lease Auth.”
Hoopa Valley Tribe v. United States, 86 Fed. Cl. 430 (Fed. Cl. 2009). “This case arises from the Hoopa-Yurok Settlement Act, 25 U.S.C. § 1300i, et seq. (2006) (“the Act”), legislation passed by Congress in 1988 to resolve longstanding issues regarding the ownership, management, and revenue-sharing of a former joint reservation (the “Joint…”
Baley v. United States, 942 F.3d 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2019). “The rights were confirmed by the 1988 Hoopa-Yurok Settle- ment Act, 25 U.S.C. § 1300i et seq. See Baley, 134 Fed.”
Shermoen v. United States, 982 F.2d 1312 (9th Cir. 1992). “2924 (codified at 25 U.S.C. §§ 1300i — 1300i—11 (1988)) (“Act”), thereby partitioning a communal reservation on the Klamath and Trinity Rivers in Northern California for the purpose of “resolvpng] long standing [sic] litigation between the United States, the Hoopa Valley Tribe…”
Short v. United States, 50 F.3d 994 (Fed. Cir. 1995). “The seventy-percent fund was combined with other funds to form a “Settlement Fund,” and Congress required the Secretary to apportion this fund between the Hoopa Valley Tribe and the Yuroks roughly in proportion to population.”
Karuk Tribe of California v. United States, 27 Fed. Cl. 429 (Fed. Cl. 1993). “According to the Karuks, the Settlement Act of 1988, 25 U.S.C. §§ 1300i to 1300Í-11, partitioned the reservation between two other tribes, the Hoopa Valley Tribe (“Hoopas”) and the Yurok Tribe, excluding the Karuks from sharing in the reservation.”
Karuk Tribe of California v. United States, 41 Fed. Cl. 468 (Fed. Cl. 1998). “In this consolidated action, plaintiffs, the Karuk Tribe of California (“Karuk”), the Yurok Indian Tribe (“Yurok”), and individual Indians led by Carol McConnell Ammon (“Ammon Group”), move for summary judgment, claiming that the 1988 Hoopa-Yurok Settlement Act, 25 U.S.C. §…”
Hage v. United States, 35 Fed. Cl. 737 (Fed. Cl. 1996). “The applicants-intervenors argued that a monetary award to the Karuk Tribe would threaten the Hoopas’ interest in sharing the benefits of the Settlement Act.”
Parravano v. Babbitt, 70 F.3d 539 (9th Cir. 1995). “The district court determined that executive orders issued in 1876 and 1891 and the 1988 Hoopa-Yurok Settlement Act, 25 U.S.C. § 1300i et seq., vested the Hoopa Valley and Yurok Tribes (the “Tribes”) with federally reserved fishing rights.”
Parravano v. Babbitt, 861 F. Supp. 914 (N.D. Cal. 1994). “Exhibit 2 is a notice in the nature of an interpretative rule, defining the eligibility criteria for Indian fishing on the Yurok and Hoopa Valley reservations, to bring these criteria into conformity with the Hoopa-Yurok Settlement Act (HYSA), 25 U.S.C. § 1300i et seq. 10…”
Karuk Tribe v. Ammon, 209 F.3d 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2000). “Hoopa-Yurok Settlement Act, 25 U.S.C. §§ 1300i—1300i—11 (1994) (the Settlement Act).”
Short v. United States, 28 Fed. Cl. 590 (Fed. Cl. 1993). “2924 (1988), codified at 25 U.S.C. § 1300i to 1300Í-11. (“Settlement Act” or “the Act”).”
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.