25 U.S.C. § 1774
Omitted
[omitted]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 15
cases, 1994–2018 · leading case: Fluent v. Salamanca Indian Lease Auth., 847 F. Supp. 1046 (W.D.N.Y. 1994).
Fluent v. Salamanca Indian Lease Auth., 847 F. Supp. 1046 (W.D.N.Y. 1994). “Congress subsequently enacted the Seneca Nation Settlement Act of 1990, 25 U.S.C. §§ 1774 -1774h (the “1990 Act”), in which it validated the Agreement between the Nation and the City and agreed to pay the Nation approximately $35 million.”
Citizens Against Casino Gambling v. Chaudhuri, 802 F.3d 267 (2d Cir. 2015). “§§ 2701-2721 , and the Seneca Nation Settlement Act of 1990 (“SNSA”), 25 U.S.C. §§ 1774 -1774L A. The Indian Gaming Regulatory Act Congress enacted IGRA in 1988 “to provide a statutory basis for the operation of gaming by Indian tribes as a means of promoting tribal economic…”
Citizens Agaist Cas. Gam., Erie Cty. v. Kempthorne, 471 F. Supp. 2d 295 (W.D.N.Y. 2007). “SNSA Seneca Nation Settlement Act of 1990, 25 U.S.C. §§ 1774 et seq. QTA Quiet Title Act, 28 U.”
Wyandotte Nation v. Nat'l Indian Gaming Comm'n, 437 F. Supp. 2d 1193 (D. Kan. 2006). “25 U.S.C. § 1774 (b)(2). 129 . Id. § 1774(a).”
Banner v. United States, 238 F.3d 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2001). “The appellants argue that the enactment of a federal statute, the Seneca Nation Land Claims Settlement Act of 1990, 25 U.S.C. § 1774 (1994 & Supp. IV 2000) (“Act of 1990”), constitutes a taking of certain property interests in violation of the Takings Clause of the Fifth…”
Citizens against Casino Gambling v. Kempthorne, 471 F. Supp. 2d 295 (W.D.N.Y. 2007). “SNSA Seneca Nation Settlement Act of 1990, 25 U.S.C. §§ 1774 et seq. QTA Quiet Title Act, 28 U.”
Banner v. United States, 38 Fed. Cl. 700 (Fed. Cl. 1997). “The complaint alleges that the enactment and enforcement of the Seneca Nation Settlement Act of 1990, 25 U.S.C. § 1774 (1994) (hereinafter “1990 Act”), constitutes a taking of plaintiffs’ property under the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution.”
Banner v. United States, 44 Fed. Cl. 568 (Fed. Cl. 1999). “Plaintiffs contend that a 1990 congressional statute — the Seneca Nation Land Claims Settlement Act, 25 U.S.C. § 1774 (1994) (hereinafter “Act of 1990”) — extin *570 guished plaintiffs’ leasehold renewal rights and unlawfully transferred plaintiffs’ ownership interest in…”
Connecticut ex rel. Blumenthal v. United States Dep't of the Interior, 228 F.3d 82 (2d Cir. 2000). “§§ 1773 — 73j; Seneca Nation (New York) Land Claims Settlement, 25 U.S.C. §§ 1774 -74h; Mohegan Nation (Connecticut) Land Claims Settlement, 25 U.”
Huron Grp., Inc. v. Pataki, 5 Misc. 3d 648 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2004). “) Under the Seneca Nation (New York) Land Claims Settlement Act (Settlement Act) ( 25 USC §§ 1774 -1774f), the State *656 expended $16,000,000 in cash (plus $9,000,000 “for economic or community development”) to settle claims concerning leases of Seneca Nation land in Salamanca…”
Bay Mills Indian Cmty. v. Snyder, 372 F. Supp. 3d 570 (W.D. Mich. 2018). “Bay Mills argues the Seneca Nation statute is unique because of the facts and circumstances giving rise to the lawsuit and legislation, which are summarized in the statute, 25 U.S.C. § 1774 . The Second Circuit's opinion speaks for itself; the panel did not identify any of the…”
AG Organic, Inc. v. John, 892 F. Supp. 466 (W.D.N.Y. 1995). “On December 2, 1991, pursuant to the Seneca Nation Settlement Act of 1990, 25 U.S.C. §§ 1774 -1774h, the Seneca Nation of Indians and Ann Boser entered into a lease, as lessor and lessee, respectively, covering the parcel of land at issue.”
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.