25 U.S.C. § 1774f
Omitted
[omitted]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 8
cases, 2004–2018 · leading case: Citizens Against Casino Gambling v. Chaudhuri, 802 F.3d 267 (2d Cir. 2015).
Citizens Against Casino Gambling v. Chaudhuri, 802 F.3d 267 (2d Cir. 2015). “See 25 U.S.C. § 1774f(c). As mentioned previously, the SNSA appears to be unique in this regard.”
Citizens Agaist Cas. Gam., Erie Cty. v. Kempthorne, 471 F. Supp. 2d 295 (W.D.N.Y. 2007). “[17] Defendants conceded at oral argument that placement of the Buffalo Parcel in restricted fee is a final agency action for purposes of the APA.”
Wyandotte Nation v. Nat'l Indian Gaming Comm'n, 437 F. Supp. 2d 1193 (D. Kan. 2006). “25 U.S.C. § 1774f(c). 136 . Id. 137 . (AR 740-741.”
Huron Grp., Inc. v. Pataki, 5 Misc. 3d 648 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2004). “Further, the Seneca Nation intends to use funds from the Settlement Act to purchase the property (see Compact 1i 11 [b] [3], [4]), as the Settlement Act permits land “within [the Nation’s] aboriginal area in the State or situated within or near proximity to former reservation…”
Citizens against Casino Gambling v. Kempthorne, 471 F. Supp. 2d 295 (W.D.N.Y. 2007). “The Buffalo Parcel is held in restricted fee status because it was acquired with SNSA funds, 25 U.S.C. § 1774f(c), and the Secretary did not determine that the land should not be subject to the Nonintercourse Act, 25 U.”
Bay Mills Indian Cmty. v. Snyder, 372 F. Supp. 3d 570 (W.D. Mich. 2018). “In contrast, one settlement act, the Seneca Nation Land Settlement Claim Act provides for the acquisition of land to be held in fee with restriction on alienation.”
Citizens Against Casino Gambling in Erie Cty. v. Chaudhuri (2d Cir. 2015). “‐21‐ 1 25 U.S.C. § 1774f(c). As mentioned previously, the SNSA appears to 2 be unique in this regard.”
Huron Grp., Inc. v. Pataki, 2004 NY Slip Op 24240 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Erie Cty. 2004). “these funds, and an additional $30,000,000 contributed by the federal government, to purchase land "within its aboriginal area in the State or situated within or near proximity to former reservation land," such lands shall, absent a certain determination by the United States…”
— 25 U.S.C. § 1774f(c) — 6 cases
Citizens Against Casino Gambling v. Chaudhuri, 802 F.3d 267 (2d Cir. 2015). “See 25 U.S.C. § 1774f(c). As mentioned previously, the SNSA appears to be unique in this regard.”
Citizens Agaist Cas. Gam., Erie Cty. v. Kempthorne, 471 F. Supp. 2d 295 (W.D.N.Y. 2007). “[17] Defendants conceded at oral argument that placement of the Buffalo Parcel in restricted fee is a final agency action for purposes of the APA.”
Wyandotte Nation v. Nat'l Indian Gaming Comm'n, 437 F. Supp. 2d 1193 (D. Kan. 2006). “25 U.S.C. § 1774f(c). 136 . Id. 137 . (AR 740-741.”
Citizens against Casino Gambling v. Kempthorne, 471 F. Supp. 2d 295 (W.D.N.Y. 2007). “The Buffalo Parcel is held in restricted fee status because it was acquired with SNSA funds, 25 U.S.C. § 1774f(c), and the Secretary did not determine that the land should not be subject to the Nonintercourse Act, 25 U.”
Bay Mills Indian Cmty. v. Snyder, 372 F. Supp. 3d 570 (W.D. Mich. 2018). “In contrast, one settlement act, the Seneca Nation Land Settlement Claim Act provides for the acquisition of land to be held in fee with restriction on alienation.”
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.