U.S. Code » Title 25 » Chapter CHAPTER 19— INDIAN LAND CLAIMS SETTLEMENTS › Subchapter SUBCHAPTER I— RHODE ISLAND INDIAN CLAIMS SETTLEMENT › Part Part A— General Provisions

25 U.S.C. § 1701

Omitted

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

[omitted]

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 16 cases, 1985–2014 · leading case: Carcieri v. Salazar, 555 U.S. 379 (2009).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Carcieri v. Salazar, 555 U.S. 379 (2009). · cites it 6× “813 , 25 U. S. C. §1701 et seq. Under the agreement codi —————— 1 The Narragansett Tribe recognized today is the successor to two tribes, the Narragansett and the Niantic Tribes.”
Countyof Oneida v. Oneida Indian Nation of NY, 470 U.S. 226 (1985). · cites it 2× “See Rhode Island Indian Claims Settlement Act, 25 U. S. C. § 1701 et seq.; Maine Indian Claims Settlement Act, 25 U.”
Carcieri v. Norton, 398 F.3d 22 (1st Cir. 2005). · cites it 2× “, the Rhode Island Indian Claims Settlement Act, 25 U.S.C. § 1701 et seq., the Administrative Procedures Act, 5 U.”
Rhode Island v. Narragansett Indian Tribe, 19 F.3d 685 (1st Cir. 1994). “, 25 U.S.C. § 1701 (d) (declaring that the J-MEM “requires implementing legislation”); Joint Hearing at 97 (acknowledging that “the legislation as drafted intends to implement the settlement agreement”) (statement of Alan R.”
Greene v. Rhode Island, 398 F.3d 45 (1st Cir. 2005). “” See 25 U.S.C. § 1701 (c). As the D.C. Circuit noted in Narragansett Indian Tribe v.”
Narragansett Indian Tribe v. State of Rhode Island & UTGR, Inc. d/b/a Twin River & Newport Grand, LLC,Intervenor, 81 A.3d 1106 (R.I. 2014). “At length, in 1978, the dispute was settled by means of a Joint Memorandum of Understanding (JMOU), codified at 25 U.S.C. §§ 1701 through 1716, which was signed by the Tribe, then-Rhode Island Governor J.”
Dark-Eyes v. Comm'r of Revenue Servs., 887 A.2d 848 (Conn. 2006). “See Rhode Island Indian Claims Settlement Act, 25 U.S.C. §§ 1701 through 1716 (enacted September 30, 1978); Maine Indian Claims Settlement Act of 1980, 25 U.”
Narragansett Indian Tribe v. Nat'l Indian Gaming Comm'n, 158 F.3d 1335 (D.C. Cir. 1998). “This suggests that Congress intended to ensure that any suits challenging the validity of the Settlement Act "were brought quickly and heard by the court most familiar with the issues, i.”
Narragansett Indian Tribe of Rhode Island v. Rhode Island, 296 F. Supp. 2d 153 (D.R.I. 2003). · cites it 2× “) The Tribe’s Complaint sets forth allegations that the Tribe’s status under the Rhode Island Indian Claims Settlement Act (“Settlement Act”), 25 U.S.C. § 1701 , et seq., and its sovereign immunity as a federally recognized Indian tribe preclude the State and its officials from…”
Greene v. Rhode Island, 289 F. Supp. 2d 5 (D.R.I. 2003). · cites it 3× “or the “Act”), 25 U.S.C. § 1701 et seq., bars the Wampanoags’ claims.”
Maynard v. Narragansett Indian Tribe, 798 F. Supp. 94 (D.R.I. 1992). “Congress passed the Rhode Island Indian Claims Settlement Act, 25 U.S.C. § 1701 et seq.; Rhode Island passed the Narragansett Indian Land Management Corporation Act, R.”
Narragansett Indian Tribe of Rhode Island v. Narragansett Elec. Co., 878 F. Supp. 349 (D.R.I. 1995). “Congress implemented the settlement agreement by enacting the Rhode Island Indian Claims Settlement Act of 1978, 25 U.S.C. § 1701 et seq., (the Settlement Act) “which, for the most part tracks the [Joint Memorandum].”
Show all 16 citing cases →
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.