25 U.S.C. § 1751
Omitted
[omitted]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 12
cases, 1986–2006 · leading case: State v. Spears, 662 A.2d 80 (Conn. 1995).
State v. Spears, 662 A.2d 80 (Conn. 1995). “2 The trial court denied the motion to dismiss, concluding that the Connecticut Indian Land Claims Settlement Act of 1983 (Settlement Act); 25 U.S.C. §§ 1751 through 1760; conferred criminal jurisdiction over the reservation to the state.”
Drumm v. Brown, 716 A.2d 50 (Conn. 1998). “In that case, we concluded that pursuant to the Mashantucket Pequot Indian Claims Settlement Act; 25 U.S.C. §§ 1751 through 1760; Connecticut courts have jurisdiction over civil actions “between Indians or to which Indians are parties which arise in the areas of Indian country…”
Dark-Eyes v. Comm'r of Revenue Servs., 887 A.2d 848 (Conn. 2006). “enrolled member of the federally recognized Mashantucket Pequot Tribe (tribe), was subject to state income tax on income she derived from sources within the tribe’s reservation while living on property owned by the tribe and designated by the United States Congress as “private…”
Charles v. Charles, 701 A.2d 650 (Conn. 1997). “851 , is codified at 25 U.S.C. §§ 1751 through 1760. The defendant’s reliance on Mashantucket Pequot Tribe v.”
State v. Spears, 647 A.2d 1054 (Conn. App. Ct. 1994). “851 (1983), codified at 25 U.S.C. §§ 1751 through 1760. The act is also known as the Mashantucket Pequot Indian Claims Settlement Act.”
Havasupai Tribe v. United States, 752 F. Supp. 1471 (D. Ariz. 1990). “§ 1771 ; 25 U.S.C. § 1751 . In those acts, however, Congress did not preserve aboriginal rights, but only personal claims of individual Indians.”
Mashantucket Pequot Tribe v. McGuigan, 626 F. Supp. 245 (D. Conn. 1986). “There is no claim that Connecticut has formally acted to assume criminal jurisdiction over the land which now constitutes plaintiff’s Reservation, Indian lands for the purpose of federal statutes, nor that the tribe has consented to such assumption.”
Sevastian v. Sevastian, 808 A.2d 1180 (Conn. App. Ct. 2002). “See 25 U.S.C. §§ 1751 to 1759; General Statutes § 47-63.”
State of Conn. Ex Rel. Blumenthal v. Babbitt, 26 F. Supp. 2d 397 (D. Conn. 1998). “5 (1983); see 25 U.S.C. § 1751 (a). In the underlying lawsuit the Tribe had asserted claims arising from mid-nineteenth century transactions involving land “formerly held by the Tribe.”
Connecticut ex rel. Blumenthal v. United States Dep't of the Interior, 228 F.3d 82 (2d Cir. 2000). “” 25 U.S.C. § 1751 (b). Therefore, the Act continues, “Congress shares with the State of Connecticut and the parties to the lawsuit a desire to remove all clouds on titles resulting from such Indian land claims.”
State of Conn. Ex Rel. Blumenthal v. Babbitt, 899 F. Supp. 80 (D. Conn. 1995). “On January 1, 1993 the Mashantuck-et Tribe submitted an application to the Bureau-of Indian Affairs Eastern Area Office (hereinafter the “EAO”) seeking to transfer six parcels of land (hereinafter the “land”) 1 to the United States to be held in trust pursuant to the Indian…”
Narragansett Indian v. State of Rhode Islan, 449 F.3d 16 (1st Cir. 2005). “; Mashantucket Pequot: Indian Claims Settlement Act of 1983, 25 U.S.C. §§ 1751 et seq.; Seminole Land Claims Settlement Act of 1987, 25 U.”
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.