25 U.S.C. § 1735
Omitted
[omitted]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 9
cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1995–2021 · leading case: Lockhart v. United States
Lockhart v. United States (2005)
“§559 ; 25 U. S. C. §1735 (b); 42 U. S. C. §2000bb3(b); 50 U.”
Passamaquoddy Tribe v. State of Maine (1996)
“25 U.S.C. § 1735 (b) (emphasis supplied).”
Akins v. Penobscot Indian (1997)
“25 U.S.C. § 1735 (b). The Settlement Act provides at 25 U.”
Great Northern Paper, Inc. v. Penobscot Nation (2001)
“25 U.S.C.A. § 1735 (b) (West 1983); see also Passamaquoddy Tribe v.”
Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. Wampanoag Tribe of Gay Head (2017)
“25 U.S.C. § 1735 (b) (emphasis added). We reasoned that the Maine Settlement Act contained a savings clause that “acts as a warning signal to later Congresses to stop, look, and listen before weakening the foundation on which the settlement between Maine and the Tribe rests,”…”
Penobscot Nation v. Georgia-Pacific Corp. (2001)
“1997); see also 25 U.S.C. § 1735 . The companies do not dispute that premise in this case.”
Passamaquoddy Tribe v. State of Maine (1995)
“25 U.S.C. § 1735 (b). In April 1994, the Tribe’s proposal to build a casino near Calais, Maine was rejected by the Maine legislature.”
Massachusetts v. Wampanoag Tribe of Gay Head (Aquinnah) (2015)
“25 U.S.C. § 1735 (b). Finding that IGRA was a statute enacted “for the benefit of Indians” and that it was not “specifically made applicable within the State of Maine,” the court held that the savings clause prevented IGRA from impliedly repealing the Maine Settlement Act.”
United States v. Frey (2021)
“To this point, my focus has been on the four corners of the MICSA and the MIA.”
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.