25 U.S.C. § 1723
Omitted
[omitted]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 9
cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1984–2021 · leading case: Penobscot Nation v. Mills, 861 F.3d 324 (1st Cir. 2017).
Penobscot Nation v. Mills, 861 F.3d 324 (1st Cir. 2017). “1 The State Defendants objected to the United States' motion to intervene on the ground that it was barred by 25 U.S.C. § 1723 (a)(2), and they continue that objection on appeal.”
Cipollone v. Liggett Grp., Inc., 593 F. Supp. 1146 (D.N.J. 1984). “§ 301 (a); 25 U.S.C. §§ 1723 (a)(1), 1753(d) (preemption of common law fraud claims only), and procedural provisions.”
Akins v. Penobscot Indian, 130 F.3d 482 (1st Cir. 1997). “See 25 U.S.C. § 1723 . 8 . Debates about the role to be played by historical and anthropological evidence in Indian cases are not new.”
Penobscot Nation v. Mills, 151 F. Supp. 3d 181 (D. Me. 2015). “See 25 U.S.C. § 1723 . This ratification by its express terms included not' 6nly “any voluntary or involuntary sale, grant, lease, allotment, partition, or other conveyance,” but also “any act, event, or circumstance that resulted in a change in title to, possession of, dominion…”
Maine v. Johnson, 498 F.3d 37 (1st Cir. 2007). “In Maine’s favor, the Settlement Acts extinguished the tribes’ remaining claims to vast tracts of Maine land, 25 U.S.C. § 1723 , and extended state authority well beyond what is customary for Indian tribes elsewhere in the United States.”
Indian Twp. Passamaquoddy Reservation Hous. Auth. v. Governor, 495 A.2d 1189 (Me. 1985). “§ 1731 the Act also provides, [ejxcept as expressly provided herein, this subchapter shall constitute a general discharge and release of all obligations of the State of Maine and all of its political subdivisions, agencies, departments, and all of the officers or employees…”
Passamaquoddy Tribe v. State of Maine, 897 F. Supp. 632 (D. Me. 1995). “25 U.S.C. §§ 1723 (b)(c), 1721(b)(4), 1725(a).”
United States v. Frey (1st Cir. 2021). “by - 23 - Such a definition would conflict with 25 U.S.C. § 1723 , which ratified all transfers the Nation made before December 1, 1873.”
United States v. Frey (1st Cir. 2020). “Does 25 U.S.C. § 1723 (a)(2) bar the United States from asserting to this Court the claims it previously articulated to the panel? 8.”
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.