U.S. Code » Title 25 » Chapter CHAPTER 19— INDIAN LAND CLAIMS SETTLEMENTS › Subchapter SUBCHAPTER II— MAINE INDIAN CLAIMS SETTLEMENT

25 U.S.C. § 1735

Omitted

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 25 CasesGoogle Scholar

[omitted]

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 9 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1995–2021 · leading case: Lockhart v. United States, 546 U.S. 142 (2005).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Lockhart v. United States, 546 U.S. 142 (2005). · cites it 2× “§559 ; 25 U. S. C. §1735 (b); 42 U. S. C. §2000bb—3(b); 50 U.”
Passamaquoddy Tribe v. State of Maine, 75 F.3d 784 (1st Cir. 1996). · cites it 3× “25 U.S.C. § 1735 (b) (emphasis supplied).”
Akins v. Penobscot Indian, 130 F.3d 482 (1st Cir. 1997). · cites it 2× “25 U.S.C. § 1735 (b). The Settlement Act provides at 25 U.”
Great N. Paper, Inc. v. Penobscot Nation, 2001 ME 68 (Me. 2001). “25 U.S.C.A. § 1735 (b) (West 1983); see also Passamaquoddy Tribe v.”
Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. Wampanoag Tribe of Gay Head, 853 F.3d 618 (1st Cir. 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-Pac. Corp., 254 F.3d 317 (1st Cir. 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, 897 F. Supp. 632 (D. Me. 1995). · cites it 2× “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), 144 F. Supp. 3d 152 (D. Mass. 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 (1st Cir. 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.