25 U.S.C. § 2702
Declaration of policy
This chapter, referred to in text, was in the original “this Act”, meaning Pub. L. 100–497,
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 266
cases (23 in the last 5 years), 1989–2025 · leading case: Cossey v. Cherokee Nation Enter., LLC, 2009 OK 6 (Okla. 2009).
Cossey v. Cherokee Nation Enter., LLC, 2009 OK 6 (Okla. 2009). “Congress has "partially abrogated the immunity of Indian tribes in the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, but only for suits brought by states to enjoin a Class III gaming activity conducted in violation of a tribal-state compact between the tribe and the state pursuant to the Act.”
Stand up for California v. State of Cal., 6 Cal. App. 5th 686 (Cal. Ct. App. 2016). “” ( 25 U.S.C. § 2702 (1).) Under IGRA, gambling is divided into three classes.”
Texas v. United States, 497 F.3d 491 (5th Cir. 2007). “The purpose of the IGRA is not simply to establish a neutral bargaining forum; IGRA's purpose is to affirmatively help Indian tribes enter and conduct the business of gaming, where gaming is not prohibited by state laws of general application, as a means of "promoting tribal…”
Wisconsin v. Ho-Chunk Nation, 512 F.3d 921 (7th Cir. 2008). “25 U.S.C. § 2702 . The Nation argues that because the State is the party seeking an injunction under 25 U.”
Seminole Tribe of Florida v. Florida, 517 U.S. 44 (1996). “See 25 U. S. C. § 2702 . The Act divides gaming on Indian lands into three classesI, II, and IIIand provides a different regulatory scheme for each class.”
Dairyland Greyhound Park, Inc. v. Doyle, 2006 WI 107 (Wis. 2006). “Congress passed IGRA to establish federal standards for gaming on Indian lands, 25 U.S.C. § 2702 (3), and to allow state involvement through compacts with regard to Class III gaming.”
Michigan v. Bay Mills Indian Cmty., 134 S. Ct. 2024 (2014). “25 U. S. C. §2702 (1) (explaining that Congress’ purpose in enacting IGRA was “to provide a statutory basis for the operation of gaming by Indian tribes as a means of promoting tribal economic development, self- sufficiency, and strong tribal governments”); see also Cohen’s…”
Panzer v. Doyle, 2004 WI 52 (Wis. 2004). “[77] 25 U.S.C. § 2702 (1). [78] Majority op., ¶¶ 38-40.”
Saratoga Cnty. Chamber of Com., Inc. v. Pataki, 798 N.E.2d 1047 (NY 2003). “IGRA provides statutory *809 authorization for the establishment of Indian casinos, attempts to regulate the gaming so as to avoid "corrupting influences" and seeks to ensure that the Indian tribes are the primary beneficiaries of the gaming ( see 25 USC § 2702 ). IGRA requires…”
Dalton v. Pataki, 835 N.E.2d 1180 (NY 2005). “) The primary purpose of IGRA is "to provide a statutory basis for the operation of gaming by Indian tribes as a means of promoting tribal economic development, self-sufficiency, and strong tribal governments" ( 25 USC § 2702 [1]). [15] IGRA divides gaming on Indian lands into…”
Chicken Ranch Rancheria v. State of California, 42 F.4th 1024 (9th Cir. 2022). “25 U.S.C. § 2702 (2). These objectives “for the regulation of gaming” are tied to the operations of the gaming activities themselves, not to anything that may happen on tribal lands simply because the tribe has endeavored to build a casino there.”
Citizens Exposing Truth About Casinos v. Kempthorne, 492 F.3d 460 (D.C. Cir. 2007). “2006) (quoting 25 U.S.C. § 2702 (1)), and “to ensure that the .”
— 25 U.S.C. § 2702(1) — 1 case
In Re Kedrowski, 284 B.R. 439 (Bankr. W.D. Wis. 2002).
— 25 U.S.C. § 2702(2) — 2 cases
Flandreau Santee Sioux Tribe v. Gerlach, 162 F. Supp. 3d 888 (D.S.D. 2016).
Flandreau Santee Sioux Tribe v. Gerlach, 155 F. Supp. 3d 972 (D.S.D. 2015).
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.