25 U.S.C. § 1726
Omitted
[omitted]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 4
cases, 1997–2007 · leading case: Aroostook Band of Micmacs v. Ryan, 404 F.3d 48 (1st Cir. 2005).
Aroostook Band of Micmacs v. Ryan, 404 F.3d 48 (1st Cir. 2005). “tvith 25 U.S.C. § 1726 (a). And the Federal Micmac Settlement Act— again unlike MÍCSA — does not explicitly subject the Band to Maine law.”
Aroostook Band of Micmacs v. Ryan, 484 F.3d 41 (1st Cir. 2007). “25 U.S.C. § 1726 (a). If we were to accept the Aroostook Band’s argument about the meaning of this language, we would be forced to conclude that § 1726(a) acted to exempt the Houlton Band from the provisions of § 1725(a) (which applies Maine law to the Houlton Band).”
Aroostook Band of Micmacs v. Ryan, 403 F. Supp. 2d 114 (D. Me. 2005). “25 U.S.C. § 1726 (a) (emphasis added). The Band emphasizes that the underlined portion of the MICSA self-government provision, in contrast to ABMSA, requires that the Passamaquoddy Tribe, the Penobscot Nation, and the Houlton Band of Maliseets self-govern in conformance with the…”
Houlton Band of Maliseet Indians v. Maine Human Rights Comm'n, 960 F. Supp. 449 (D. Me. 1997). “The Band also contends that 25 U.S.C. § 1726 supports the Band’s sovereign right to control its “internal tribal matters.”
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.