The courts of the State of New York under the laws of such State shall have jurisdiction in civil actions and proceedings between Indians or between one or more Indians and any other person or persons to the same extent as the courts of the State shall have jurisdiction in other civil actions and proceedings, as now or hereafter defined by the laws of such State: Provided, That the governing body of any recognized tribe of Indians in the State of New York shall have the right to declare, by appropriate enactment prior to September 13, 1952, those tribal laws and customs which they desire to preserve, which, on certification to the Secretary of the Interior by the governing body of such tribe shall be published in the Federal Register and thereafter shall govern in all civil cases involving reservation Indians when the subject matter of such tribal laws and customs is involved or at issue, but nothing herein contained shall be construed to prevent such courts from recognizing and giving effect to any tribal law or custom which may be proven to the satisfaction of such courts: Provided further, That nothing in this section shall be construed to require any such tribe or the members thereof to obtain fish and game licenses from the State of New York for the exercise of any hunting and fishing rights provided for such Indians under any agreement, treaty, or custom: Provided further, That nothing herein contained shall be construed as subjecting the lands within any Indian reservation in the State of New York to taxation for State or local purposes, nor as subjecting any such lands, or any Federal or State annuity in favor of Indians or Indian tribes, to execution on any judgment rendered in the State courts, except in the enforcement of a judgment in a suit by one tribal member against another in the matter of the use or possession of land: And provided further, That nothing herein contained shall be construed as authorizing the alienation from any Indian nation, tribe, or band of Indians of any lands within any Indian reservation in the State of New York: Provided further, That nothing herein contained shall be construed as conferring jurisdiction on the courts of the State of New York or making applicable the laws of the State of New York in civil actions involving Indian lands or claims with respect thereto which relate to transactions or events transpiring prior to September 13, 1952.
Notes of Decisions
Countyof Oneida v. Oneida Indian Nation of NY, 470 U.S. 226 (1985).
· cites it 8× “" 25 U. S. C. § 233 . This proviso was added specifically to ensure that the New York statute of limitations would not apply to pre-1952 land claims.”
State of New York v. Shinnecock Indian Nation, 686 F.3d 133 (2d Cir. 2012).
· cites it 4× “n Court 2 “found multiple bases satisfying federal subject matter 3 jurisdiction”: (1) “the existence of a possessory land claim by a 4 tribe in the complaint”; (2) “‘the not insubstantial claim that 5 federal law now protects, and has continuously protected from the 6 time of…”
Bowen v. Doyle, 880 F. Supp. 99 (W.D.N.Y. 1995).
· cites it 9× “In a decision dated December 22, 1994, Justice Doyle held that the State Court has jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to 25 U.S.C. § 233 and N.Y. Indian Law § 5 .”
Oneida Indian Nation v. Cnty. of Oneida, 414 U.S. 661 (1974).
· cites it 4× “845 , 25 U. S. C. § 233 . [14] The latter statute, however, provided for the *680 preservation of tribal laws and customs and saved Indian reservation lands from taxation and, with certain exceptions, from execution to satisfy state court judgments.”
Oneida Indian Nation v. Burr, 132 A.D.2d 402 (N.Y. App. Div. 1987).
· cites it 24× “Supreme Court found that Indian Law § 5, as amended in 1953 (L 1953, ch 671), in conjunction with 1950 Federal legislation ( 25 USC § 233 [64 US Stat 845]) conferred jurisdiction upon the New York courts over an action such as this where an Indian tribe brings suit for damages…”
Fed. Power Comm'n v. Tuscarora Indian Nation, 362 U.S. 99 (1960).
· cites it 4× “[17] The Tuscaroras also rely upon 25 U. S. C. § 233 , which confers, subject to qualifications, jurisdiction upon the courts of New York over civil actions between Indians and also between them and other persons, and contains a pertinent proviso "That nothing herein contained…”
Frazier v. Turning Stone Casino, 254 F. Supp. 2d 295 (N.D.N.Y. 2003).
· cites it 3× “They also assert that this Court has federal question jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 25 U.S.C. § 233 and 28 U.S.C. §§ 1330 , 1331, 1360, 1362 and 1605.”
South Carolina v. Catawba Indian Tribe, Inc., 476 U.S. 498 (1986).
· cites it 2× “845 , 25 U. S. C. § 233 . Furthermore, in a later series of more general enactments imposing a federal statute of limitations on certain tort and contract actions brought anywhere in the United States by Indians or by the United States on behalf of Indians, Congress specifically…”
Mohegan Tribe v. State of Conn., 528 F. Supp. 1359 (D. Conn. 1982).
· cites it 5× “2d 153 (1979), recognized that the states stand in a different footing than individuals in their dealings with Indians; and (3) that Congress expressed its understanding that the Nonintercourse Act did not proscribe land transactions with the states when it passed the Act of…”
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.