25 U.S.C. § 1708
Omitted
[omitted]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 19
cases, 1992–2017 · leading case: Carcieri v. Kempthorne
Carcieri v. Kempthorne (2005)
“Following that recognition, in 1985, Rhode Island amended the pertinent state statute to permit the conveyance of the settlement lands directly to the Tribe, explicitly preserving the State’s jurisdiction over the settlement lands, consistent with the Settlement Act, 25 U.S.C. §…”
Carcieri v. Norton (2005)
“95-1453, at 25, 26; see also 25 U.S.C. § 1708 . In addition, the parties agreed that “except as otherwise specified in this Memorandum, all laws of the state of Rhode Island shall be in full force and effect on the Settlement Lands, including but not limited to state and local…”
Narragansett Indian Tribe v. National Indian Gaming Commission (1998)
“” 25 U.S.C. § 1708 (a). With the enactment of this statute, the Nar-ragansetts joined a growing number of Indian tribes that have reclaimed tribal lands after legislative settlements of aboriginal land claims.”
Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. Wampanoag Tribe of Gay Head (2017)
“” 25 U.S.C. § 1708 (1978). We found that this settlement act and IGRA “are partially but not wholly repugnant.”
Rhode Island v. Narragansett Indian Tribe (1994)
“” 25 U.S.C. § 1708 . The Tribe maintains that this pronouncement was nugatory when made, or, if initially effective, was relegated to the scrap heap well before Congress enacted the Gaming Act.”
Carcieri v. Norton (2003)
“The plaintiffs’ reliance on 25 U.S.C. § 1708 (a) to support their contention that the Settlement Act forecloses the acceptance of the parcel into trust pursuant to § 465 is misplaced because that provision is expressly limited in application to “settlement lands.”
Carcieri v. Kempthorne (2007)
“Following that recognition, in 1985, Rhode Island amended the pertinent state statute to permit the conveyance of the settlement lands directly to the Tribe, explicitly preserving the State's jurisdiction over the settlement lands, consistent with the Settlement Act, 25 U.S.C. §…”
Citizens Against Casino Gambling v. Chaudhuri (2015)
“, 25 U.S.C. § 1708 (b) (stating, in the Rhode Island Indian Claims Settlement Act, that “for purposes of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act .”
Narragansett Indian Tribe of Rhode Island v. Rhode Island (2003)
“§ 1708 (a) provides: In general Except as otherwise provided in this sub-chapter, the settlement lands shall be subject to the ciyil and criminal laws and jurisdiction of the State of Rhode Island. 21 . One of the two "barriers” adverted to by the court as a potential impediment…”
Maynard v. Narragansett Indian Tribe (1992)
“In 1975, the Tribe filed two actions in federal court claiming approximately 3,200 acres of land in Charlestown, Rhode Island.”
Massachusetts v. Wampanoag Tribe of Gay Head (Aquinnah) (2015)
“” 25 U.S.C. § 1708 . 7 There, as here, the state initiated a declaratory-judgment action after the Indian tribe (there, the Narragansett) had requested that the state enter into negotiations for a gaming compact.”
In Re Advisory Opinion to the House of Representatives (2005)
“” 25 U.S.C. § 1708 . But the federal statute did not definitively resolve all the sovereign immunity issues; instead, the Tribe’s sovereign immunity “is an ongoing and overarching question which has vexed the State and Tribe over the years as various issues have arisen.”
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.