U.S. Code » Title 25 » Chapter CHAPTER 23— DEVELOPMENT OF TRIBAL MINERAL RESOURCES

25 U.S.C. § 2101

Definitions

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 25 CasesGoogle Scholar
For the purposes of this chapter, the term—(1) “Indian” means any individual Indian or Alaska Native who owns land or interests in land the title to which is held in trust by the United States or is subject to a restriction against alienation imposed by the United States;(2) “Indian tribe” means any Indian tribe, band, nation, pueblo, community, rancheria, colony, or other group which owns land or interests in land title to which is held in trust by the United States or is subject to a restriction against alienation imposed by the United States; and(3) “Secretary” means the Secretary of the Interior.(Pub. L. 97–382, § 2, Dec. 22, 1982, 96 Stat. 1938.)Statutory Notes and Related SubsidiariesShort Title

Pub. L. 97–382, § 1, Dec. 22, 1982, 96 Stat. 1938, provided: “That this Act [enacting this chapter] may be cited as the ‘Indian Mineral Development Act of 1982’.”

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 14 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1993–2021 · leading case: United States v. Navajo Nation, 537 U.S. 488 (2003).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
United States v. Navajo Nation, 537 U.S. 488 (2003). · cites it 2× “Similarly unavailing is the Tribe's reliance on the Indian Mineral Development Act of 1982 (IMDA), 25 U.S.C. § 2101 et seq. See Brief for Respondent 23-24, 30.”
United States v. Navajo Nation, 556 U.S. 287 (2009). “1938 , 25 U. S. C. §2101 et seq. — help its case.”
State of New York v. Mountain Tobacco Co., 942 F.3d 536 (2d Cir. 2019). “§ 305e(a)(1); 25 U.S.C. § 2101 (1); 25 U.S.C. § 3703 (8); 29 U.”
Brackeen v. Haaland, 994 F.3d 249 (5th Cir. 2021). “, 25 U.S.C. §§ 2101–2108 (development of tribal mineral resources).”
Navajo Nation v. United States, 347 F.3d 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2003). “at 1092. As far as IMDA was concerned, the Court stated that IMDA “does not establish standards governing the Secretary’s approval of mining leases negotiated by a Tribe and a third party,” and the Court added that “[t]he lease in this case .”
S. Ute Indian Tribe v. Amoco Prod. Co., 874 F. Supp. 1142 (D. Colo. 1995). “§ 396a, 25 U.S.C. § 2101 U.S. et seq., and 25 U.S.”
Utah v. Babbitt, 53 F.3d 1145 (10th Cir. 1995). “The Defendants’ argument that a broad definition of the term “lease” would be inconsistent with the Indian Mineral Development Act of 1982 (“IMDA”), 25 U.S.C.A. § 2101 -OS, is without merit.”
Navajo Nation v. United States, 68 Fed. Cl. 805 (Fed. Cl. 2005). “§ 399 does not govern the lease and that the lease “falls outside IMDA’s [the Indian Mineral Development Act of 1982, 25 U.S.C. § 2101 et seq.] domain.” The Court did not decide whether, apart from IMLA, section 399, and IMDA, “a network of other statutes and regulations”…”
State of Utah v. Babbitt, 830 F. Supp. 586 (D. Utah 1993). “(1982), the Indian Mineral Development Act of 1982, 25 U.S.C. § 2101 et seq. (1982), the Indian Mineral Leasing Act of 1938, as amended, 25 U.”
Crow Tribe of Indians v. Peters, 835 F. Supp. 2d 985 (D. Mont. 2011). “Pursuant to the terms of the Indian Mineral Development Act of 1982, 25 U.S.C. § 2101 et seq., the Crow Tribe leased to Westmoreland Resources, Inc.”
S. Ute Indian Tribe v. Amoco Prod. Co., 863 F. Supp. 1389 (D. Colo. 1994). “§ 396a, 25 U.S.C. § 2101 U.S. et seq., and 25 U.S.”
Jicarilla Apache Nation v. United States, 60 Fed. Cl. 611 (Fed. Cl. 2004). “§ 2103 (e) (2000), enacted as part of the Indian Mineral Development Act of 1982 (“IMDA”), 25 U.S.C. § 2101 , et seq., should be included within the definition of “Applicable Confidentiality Laws” that, in accordance with paragraph 3 of the proposed orders, the government may…”
Show all 14 citing cases →
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.