25 U.S.C. § 1758
Omitted
[omitted]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 10
cases, 1986–2007 · leading case: State v. Spears, 662 A.2d 80 (Conn. 1995).
State v. Spears, 662 A.2d 80 (Conn. 1995). “See 25 U.S.C. §§ 1758 (a) and 1755. The state contends that § 1755 constituted an express grant by Congress of criminal jurisdiction over the reservation to the state, and that jurisdiction was vested in the state upon the passage of the Settlement Act, without requiring any…”
Dark-Eyes v. Comm'r of Revenue Servs., 887 A.2d 848 (Conn. 2006). “” 25 U.S.C. § 1758 (a). It is the relationship between these two provisions that gives rise to the first issue that we must address.”
Drumm v. Brown, 716 A.2d 50 (Conn. 1998). “Except as otherwise provided in this subchapter, all laws and regulations of the United States of general application to Indians or Indian nations, tribes or bands of Indians which are not inconsistent with any specific provision of this subchapter shall be applicable to the…”
Carcieri v. Kempthorne, 497 F.3d 15 (1st Cir. 2005). “We attach little significance to the fact that the Mashantucket Settlement Act explicitly authorizes trust acquisition, while the Rhode Island Settlement Act does not.”
State v. Sebastian, 701 A.2d 13 (Conn. 1997). “See 25 U.S.C. § 1758 (a) (Mashantucket Pequot Tribe); 25 U.”
Mashantucket Pequot Tribe v. McGuigan, 626 F. Supp. 245 (D. Conn. 1986). “25 U.S.C. § 1758 (a). 3. Defendant was the Chief State’s Attorney charged with overall enforcement of its criminal statutes.”
Ellis v. Allied Snow Plowing, Removal & Sanding Servs. Corp., 838 A.2d 237 (Conn. App. Ct. 2004). “The issue in this case is whether the tribe’s sovereign immunity entitles a general contractor to claim sovereign immunity from state court jurisdiction to hear a tort claim arising out of the contractor’s alleged negligence in performing snow removal duties on tribally owned…”
Carcieri v. Kempthorne, 497 F.3d 15 (1st Cir. 2007). “[14] We attach little significance to the fact that the Mashantucket Settlement Act explicitly authorizes trust acquisition, while the Rhode Island Settlement Act does not.”
State v. Spears, 647 A.2d 1054 (Conn. App. Ct. 1994). “’’Asa threshold matter, we note that the Mashantucket Pequot tribe is a federally recognized Indian tribe; 25 U.S.C. § 1758 ; and occupies a reservation of land in Ledyard pursuant to General Statutes § 47-63.”
Mashantucket Pequot Gaming Enter. v. Renzulli, 188 Misc. 2d 710 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2001). “It is a federally recognized Indian tribe ( 25 USC § 1758 [a]), which exercises sovereign rights pursuant to its constitution and by-laws.”
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.