25 U.S.C. § 1725
Omitted
[omitted]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 42
cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1988–2024 · leading case: Aroostook Band of Micmacs v. Ryan, 484 F.3d 41 (1st Cir. 2007).
Aroostook Band of Micmacs v. Ryan, 484 F.3d 41 (1st Cir. 2007). “We hold that a provision of the 1980 MICSA, 25 U.S.C. § 1725 (a), clearly makes the Aroostook Band “subject to .”
Great N. Paper, Inc. v. Penobscot Nation, 2001 ME 68 (Me. 2001). “The Maine Implementing Act in turn limits tribal authority such that the Tribes shall be subject to “all the duties, obligations, liabilities and limitations of a municipality of and subject to the laws of the State.”
United States v. Newell, 658 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2011). “See 25 U.S.C. § 1725 (f) (“The Passamaquoddy Tribe .”
Akins v. Penobscot Indian, 130 F.3d 482 (1st Cir. 1997). “25 U.S.C. § 1725 (b)(1). In turn, the Settlement Act made federal law which was then generally applicable to Indians also applicable to the Penobscot Nation but declared special laws and regulations inapplicable.”
Rhode Island v. Narragansett Indian Tribe, 19 F.3d 685 (1st Cir. 1994). “§ 1771g (1988); 25 U.S.C. § 1725 (1988). Yet both acts also contain corresponding limits on Indian jurisdiction, conspicuously absent from the Settlement Act.”
Maine v. Johnson, 498 F.3d 37 (1st Cir. 2007). “25 U.S.C. § 1725 (a), (c); 30 M.R.S.A. § 6204.”
Aroostook Band of Micmacs v. Ryan, 403 F. Supp. 2d 114 (D. Me. 2005). “25 U.S.C. § 1725 (b)(1) (emphasis added); MICSA § 1725(d)(1) provides: The Passamaquoddy Tribe, the Penobscot Nation, and the Houlton Band of Maliseet Indians, and all members thereof, and all other Indians, Indian nations, or tribes or bands of Indians in the State of Maine may…”
United States v. Boots, 80 F.3d 580 (1st Cir. 1996). “However, the Maine Implementing Act also grants powers and duties to the Tribe comparable to those of a municipality (in addition to special authority to regulate internal tribal matters).”
Dominion Resources, Inc. v. United States, 641 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2011). “And: Notwithstanding the provision of section 3727 of Title 31, the Secretary is authorized to recognize validly executed assignments made by Regional Corporations of their rights to receive payments from the Alaska Native Fund.”
Aroostook Band of Micmacs v. Ryan, 404 F.3d 48 (1st Cir. 2005). “” 25 U.S.C. § 1725 (a); id. § 1721(b)(4). Finally, the federal act provided that “[i]n the event of a conflict of interpretation between the provisions of the [state] Maine Implementing Act [affecting the Pe-nobscots, Passamaquoddy, and Maliseets], the [state] Micmac Settlement…”
Am. Vantage Companies, Inc. v. Table Mountain Rancheria, 292 F.3d 1091 (9th Cir. 2002). “United States to the same extent as *1098 any other entity or person residing in the State of Maine may sue and be sued in those courts,” 25 U.S.C. § 1725 (d)(1), would have been superfluous.”
PENOBSCOT NATION, Appellant, v. Cynthia A. FELLENCER, Appellee, 164 F.3d 706 (1st Cir. 1999). “§§ 1301-41 , made applicable to the Penobscot Nation through the Settlement Act, 25 U.S.C. § 1725 (h). See Akins, 130 F.3d at 486 .”
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.