25 U.S.C. § 1775
Omitted
[omitted]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 10
cases, 1997–2007 · leading case: Kizis v. Morse Diesel Int'l, Inc., 794 A.2d 498 (Conn. 2002).
Kizis v. Morse Diesel Int'l, Inc., 794 A.2d 498 (Conn. 2002). “See 25 U.S.C. § 1775 (1994). General Statutes § 47-65b allows “[t]he state of Connecticut [to assume] .”
Dark-Eyes v. Comm'r of Revenue Servs., 887 A.2d 848 (Conn. 2006). “§§ 1773 through 1773j; Mohegan Nation of Connecticut Land Claims Settlement Act of 1994, 25 U.S.C. §§ 1775 through 1775h. To the extent that we cite to any of these settlement acts, we do not intend to suggest whether any of these other acts would in fact establish the set aside…”
Beecher v. Mohegan Tribe of Indians of Connecticut, 918 A.2d 880 (Conn. 2007). “In October, 2004, the defendant, a federally recognized Indian tribe; see 25U.S.C. § 1775; 3 brought an action against the plaintiffs in the Superior Court.”
Mohegan Tribe of Indians v. Mohegan Tribe & Nation, Inc., 769 A.2d 34 (Conn. 2001). “Furthermore, Congress expressly has found that the plaintiff “is the successor in interest to the aboriginal entity known as the Mohegan Indian Tribe”; 25 U.S.C. § 1775 (a) (2) (1994); and “has existed in the geographic area that is currently the State of Connecticut for a long…”
State v. Sebastian, 701 A.2d 13 (Conn. 1997). “§ 1758 (a) (Mashantucket Pequot Tribe); 25 U.S.C. § 1775 (a) (1) (Mohegan Tribe of Indians of Connecticut).”
Connecticut ex rel. Blumenthal v. United States Dep't of the Interior, 228 F.3d 82 (2d Cir. 2000). “§§ 1774 -74h; Mohegan Nation (Connecticut) Land Claims Settlement, 25 U.S.C. §§ 1775 -75h; Crow Boundary Settlement, 25 U.”
Buzulis v. Mohegan Sun Casino, 871 N.E.2d 527 (Mass. App. Ct. 2007). “The Mohegan Tribe is recognized as an Indian tribe by both Congress, see Mohegan Nation of Connecticut Land Claims Settlement Act of 1994, 25 U.S.C. §§ 1775 et seq. *711 (2000), and the State of Connecticut, see Conn.”
Native Am. Mohegans v. United States, 184 F. Supp. 2d 198 (D. Conn. 2002). “25 U.S.C. § 1775 . 2 . Nettis v. Levitt, 241 F.”
La Plante v. Mohegan Tribal Gaming Auth., 3 G.D.R. 17 (2006). “The Tribe has received recognition as a tribal entity by the United States pursuant to Part 83 of Title 25 of the Code of Federal Regulations, and it is the successor in interest of the aboriginal entity known as the Mohegan Indian Tribe.”
Buzulis v. Mohegan Sun Casino, 2006 Mass. App. Div. 145 (Mass. Dist. Ct., App. Div. 2006). “Mohegan Nation of Connecticut Land Claims Settlement Act of 1994, 25 U.S.C. §1775 et seq. (1994), and the State of Connecticut, General Statutes § 7-59a(b).”
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.