25 U.S.C. § 1326
Special election
State jurisdiction acquired pursuant to this subchapter with respect to criminal offenses or civil causes of action, or with respect to both, shall be applicable in Indian country only where the enrolled Indians within the affected area of such Indian country accept such jurisdiction by a majority vote of the adult Indians voting at a special election held for that purpose. The Secretary of the Interior shall call such special election under such rules and regulations as he may prescribe, when requested to do so by the tribal council or other governing body, or by 20 per centum of such enrolled adults.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 37
cases (5 in the last 5 years), 1970–2026 · leading case: State v. Marek, 736 P.2d 1314 (Idaho 1987).
State v. Marek, 736 P.2d 1314 (Idaho 1987). “All state jurisdiction extended by virtue of this act shall be concurrent (and not exclusive) with jurisdiction in the same matters existing in the tribes or the federal government.”
Iowa Mut. Ins. v. LaPlante, 480 U.S. 9 (1987). “Tribal consent is now a prerequisite to the assumption of jurisdiction, see 25 U. S. C. § 1326 , and the Blackfeet Tribe has not consented to state jurisdiction.”
State v. Hoffman, 804 P.2d 577 (Wash. 1991). “[10] Defendants also argue that jurisdiction was invalid in view of 25 U.S.C. § 1326 which provides that tribal consent to state criminal jurisdiction "acquired pursuant to this subchapter" shall be by majority vote of the adult members of the tribe at a special election held…”
State v. Major, 725 P.2d 115 (Idaho 1986). “25 U.S.C. § 1326 . The state of Idaho responded with the passage of I.”
Dark-Eyes v. Comm'r of Revenue Servs., 887 A.2d 848 (Conn. 2006). “the [Indian Civil Rights Act; 25 U.S.C. § 1326 ], the reservation of the Tribe is declared to be Indian country subject to State jurisdiction to the maximum extent provided in title IV of such Act .”
State v. Spears, 647 A.2d 1054 (Conn. App. Ct. 1994). “§ 1321 (a)], but is found in § 406 codified in 25 U.S.C. § 1326 17 . . . Mashantucket Pequot Tribe v.”
Bryan v. Itasca Cnty., 426 U.S. 373 (1976). “Section 406 of Title IV, 25 U. S. C. § 1326 , which provides for Indian consent, refers to “State jurisdiction acquired pursuant to this subchapter with respect to criminal offenses or civil causes of action .”
State Ex Rel. Peterson v. Dist. Court of the Ninth Jud. Dist., 617 P.2d 1056 (Wyo. 1980). “", and is qualified by 25 U.S.C.S. § 1326 (§ 406, 82 Stat. 80 ): " Special election "State jurisdiction acquired pursuant to this title [25 USCS §§ 1321-1326] with respect to criminal offenses or civil causes of action, or with respect to both, shall be applicable in Indian…”
State v. Spears, 662 A.2d 80 (Conn. 1995). “§ 1321 ) and to § 406 ( 25 U.S.C. § 1326 ) of the Indian Civil Rights Act of 1968 in order to ascertain the parameters and the true meaning of the jurisdictional grant.”
In Re Adoption of Buehl, 555 P.2d 1334 (Wash. 1976). “25 U.S.C. § 1326 (1970). See footnote 3. [6] We note that the Blackfeet Tribe has not consented even to the jurisdiction of the state in which its reservation lies and that Montana has not assumed such jurisdiction.”
Kennerly v. Dist. Court of the Ninth Jud. Dist. of Montana, 400 U.S. 423 (1971). “" Section 406 of the Act, 25 U. S. C. § 1326 (1964 ed., Supp. V), then provides: "State jurisdiction acquired pursuant to this subchapter with respect to criminal offenses or civil causes of action, or with respect to both, shall be applicable in Indian country only where the…”
Nelson v. Dubois, 232 N.W.2d 54 (N.D. 1975). “§ 1322 ) and § 406 ( 25 U.S.C. § 1326 ), the United States Congress clearly established the method by which States could assume civil jurisdiction over actions involving Indian parties and occurring within Indian country.”
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.