25 U.S.C. § 282
Regulations by Secretary of the Interior to secure attendance at school
The Secretary of the Interior is authorized to make and enforce such rules and regulations as may be necessary to secure the enrollment and regular attendance of eligible Indian children who are wards of the Government in schools maintained for their benefit by the United States or in public schools.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 7
cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1983–2025 · leading case: Bowen v. Doyle
Bowen v. Doyle (1995)
“Of course, if violence does occur, the State of New York would have jurisdiction over any criminal offenses, pursuant 25 U.S.C. § 282 . 51 CONCLUSION Accordingly, in order to prevent infringement of the Nation’s treaty rights to self-government and exclusive authority over its…”
Exergen Corp. v. Brooklands Inc. (2015)
“With respect to § 102, a patent is presumed valid under 25 U.S.C. § 282 . This presumption, however, can be rebutted by clear and convincing evidence, a standard that reflects the presumption of validity.”
State v. Bear (1990)
“25 U.S.C. § 282 . Pursuant to this authority, the Secretary has declared: Any Indian who shall, without good cause, neglect or refuse to send his children or any children under his care, to school, shall be deemed guilty of an offense and upon conviction thereof shall be…”
Stewart-Warner Corporation, Cross-Appellee v. The City of Pontiac, Michigan, and American Sign & Indicator Corporation, (1983)
“First, I cannot agree that the usual presumption of validity afforded by 25 U.S.C. § 282 is enhanced because the ’335 and ’926 patents were pending before the same examiner.”
Astellas Pharma Inc. v. Lupin Ltd. (2024)
“at 902 ; 25 U.S.C. § 282 (b)(3). Like any invalidity defense, indefiniteness must be shown by clear and convincing evidence.”
Allergan, Inc. v. Amneal Pharmaceuticals of New York, LLC (2025)
“) Therefore, I deny reconsideration on the issue of the legal standard to apply to Amneal’s patent invalidity defense under 25 U.S.C. § 282 (c). III. MANIFEST INJUSTICE Finally, Amneal’s argument that reconsideration of the Order is necessary to prevent manifest injustice is…”
On-LINE TECHNOLOGIES, INC. v. Perkin-Elmer Corp. (2006)
“1998) (citing 25 U.S.C. § 282 ), are not implicated. Plaintiff’s contemplated motion to strike would therefore not be well-founded.”
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.