25 U.S.C. § 1721
Omitted
[omitted]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 28
cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1983–2021 · leading case: Countyof Oneida v. Oneida Indian Nation of NY, 470 U.S. 226 (1985).
Countyof Oneida v. Oneida Indian Nation of NY, 470 U.S. 226 (1985). “; Maine Indian Claims Settlement Act, 25 U. S. C. § 1721 et seq. We agree that this litigation makes abundantly clear the necessity for congressional action.”
Aroostook Band of Micmacs v. Ryan, 403 F. Supp. 2d 114 (D. Me. 2005). “30, §§ 6201-14; see also 25 U.S.C. § 1721 (a)(8) (“The State of Maine; with the agreement of the Passamaquoddy Tribe and the Penobscot Nation, has enacted legislation defining the relationship between the Passamaquoddy Tribe, the Penobscot Nation, and their members, and the…”
Great N. Paper, Inc. v. Penobscot Nation, 2001 ME 68 (Me. 2001). “25 U.S.C.A. § 1721 (a)(9) (West 1983); Passamaquoddy Tribe v.”
Aroostook Band of Micmacs v. Ryan, 404 F.3d 48 (1st Cir. 2005). “30, §§ 6201-14; see also 25 U.S.C. § 1721 (a)(8) (“The State of Maine, with the agreement of the Passa-maquoddy Tribe and the Penobscot Nation, has enacted legislation defining the relationship between the Passamaquoddy Tribe, the Penobscot Nation, and their members, and the…”
Penobscot Nation v. Georgia-Pac. Corp., 254 F.3d 317 (1st Cir. 2001). “” 25 U.S.C. § 1721 (b)(4); accord id. § 1725; Me.”
Penobscot Nation v. Stilphen, 461 A.2d 478 (Me. 1983). “” 25 U.S.C. §§ 1721 (b)(3), 1725(b)(1). In addition to settling the land dispute, 6 these two acts quite precisely laid out the relationship thenceforth to obtain between the Penob-scot Nation and the State of Maine.”
Aroostook Band of Micmacs v. Ryan, 484 F.3d 41 (1st Cir. 2007). “1143 (codified at 25 U.S.C. § 1721 *44 note). This case turns on the interpretation of these statutes.”
PENOBSCOT NATION, Appellant, v. Cynthia A. FELLENCER, Appellee, 164 F.3d 706 (1st Cir. 1999). “The question before us is whether the decision of the Penobscot Nation Tribal Council to terminate the employment of a community health nurse constitutes an “internal tribal matter” within the meaning of the Maine Indian Claims Settlement Act of 1980, 25 U.S.C. §§ 1721 -1735.…”
Penobscot Nation v. Mills, 861 F.3d 324 (1st Cir. 2017). “, 25 U.S.C. § 1721 (b)(2) ("It is the purpose of this subchapter .”
Passamaquoddy Tribe v. State of Maine, 75 F.3d 784 (1st Cir. 1996). “See 25 U.S.C. §§ 1721 (b)(4), 1723(b) & (c), 1725(a).”
Dark-Eyes v. Comm'r of Revenue Servs., 887 A.2d 848 (Conn. 2006). “§§ 1701 through 1716 (enacted September 30, 1978); Maine Indian Claims Settlement Act of 1980, 25 U.S.C. §§ 1721 through 1735; Florida Indian Land Claims Settlement Act of 1982, 25 U.”
Cayuga Indian Nation of New York v. Vill. of Union Springs, 293 F. Supp. 2d 183 (N.D.N.Y. 2003). “Here, unlike in Penobscot, neither the Nation nor'the federal government has expressly agreed that the Nation is subject to state or local zoning regulations.”
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.