25 U.S.C. § 1771
Omitted
[omitted]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 18
cases, 1989–2018 · leading case: Dark-Eyes v. Comm'r of Revenue Servs., 887 A.2d 848 (Conn. 2006).
Dark-Eyes v. Comm'r of Revenue Servs., 887 A.2d 848 (Conn. 2006). “, Indian Claims Settlement Act of 1987; 25 U.S.C. §§ 1771 through 1771i; Congress “appropriated $2,250,000 for such fund to remain available until expended.”
Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. Wampanoag Tribe of Gay Head, 853 F.3d 618 (1st Cir. 2017). “100-95 (codified at 25 U.S.C. §§ 1771 — 1771i) (the “Federal Act”), which provides that the Settlement Lands are subject to state laws and regulations (including gaming laws and regulations), governed.”
Kitras v. Town of Aquinnah, 49 N.E.3d 198 (Mass. 2016). “25 U.S.C. § 1771b(b) (2012). Title 25 U.S.”
Wiener v. Wampanoag Aquinnah Shellfish Hatchery Corp., 223 F. Supp. 2d 346 (D. Mass. 2002). “, Indian Claims Settlement Act of 1987,” codified at 25 U.S.C. § 1771 , et seq., (the “Federal Wampanoag Settlement Act”), as a source for the exercise of authority by the Town over the Cook Lands.”
Bldg. Inspector & Zoning Officer v. Wampanoag Aquinnah Shellfish Hatchery Corp., 443 Mass. 1 (Mass. 2004). “Subsequently, Congress enacted its implementing legislation, the Massachusetts Indian Land Claims Settlement Act (Federal implementing Act), see 25 U.S.C. §§ 1771 -1771i. In this legislation, Congress ratified and confirmed the Tribe’s existence as an Indian tribe, having “a…”
Havasupai Tribe v. United States, 752 F. Supp. 1471 (D. Ariz. 1990). “Plaintiffs also analogize the language contained in the GCEA to extinguishment of title and preservation of rights in the Massachusetts and Connecticut Indian Land Claims Acts, 25 U.S.C. § 1771 ; 25 U.S.C. § 1751 . In those acts, however, Congress did not preserve aboriginal…”
KG Urban Enter., LLC v. Patrick, 293 F.R.D. 42 (D. Mass. 2013). “Most notably, the Aquinnah cannot benefit from § 91 unless it did not waive its right to conduct gaming on Aquinnah lands as a condition of the 1985 settlement agreement entered into with the conditional intervenors and the Commonwealth (now codified by legislation at 25 U.S.C.…”
Kitras v. Town of Aquinnah, 22 N.E.3d 981 (Mass. App. Ct. 2015). “" In their 8 It appears that it was not until 1987, when Congress passed 25 U.S.C. § 1771 , that aboriginal rights formally were extinguished retroactive to the date of transfer by any member of the Gay Head Tribe.”
Maynard v. Narragansett Indian Tribe, 798 F. Supp. 94 (D.R.I. 1992). “Similarly, the Massachusetts Indian Claims Settlement Act, 25 U.S.C. § 1771 et seq. explicitly abrogates the Wampanoag Tribal Council’s jurisdiction over the civil regulatory and criminal laws of the town and state.”
Connecticut ex rel. Blumenthal v. United States Dep't of the Interior, 228 F.3d 82 (2d Cir. 2000). “§§ 1741 -50e; Massachusetts Indian Land Claims Settlement, 25 U.S.C. §§ 1771 — 7li; Washington Indian (Puyallup) Land Claims Settlement, 25 U.”
Massachusetts v. Wampanoag Tribe of Gay Head, 98 F. Supp. 3d 55 (D. Mass. 2015). “100-95, codified at 25 U.S.C § 1771 et seq. (“Wampanoag Settlement Act”).”
Massachusetts v. Wampanoag Tribe of Gay Head (Aquinnah), 144 F. Supp. 3d 152 (D. Mass. 2015). “704 (codified at 25 U.S.C § 1771) (“Massachusetts Settlement Act”).”
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.