A board is created in the Department of the Interior to be known as “Indian Arts and Crafts Board”, and hereinafter referred to as the Board. The Board shall be composed of five commissioners, who shall be appointed by the Secretary of the Interior as soon as possible after August 27, 1935 and shall continue in office, two for a term of two years, one for a term of three years, and two for a term of four years from the date of their appointment, the term of each to be designated by the Secretary of the Interior, but their successors shall be appointed for a term of four years except that any person chosen to fill a vacancy shall be appointed for the unexpired term of the commissioner whom he succeeds. Both public officers and private citizens shall be eligible for membership on the Board. The Board shall elect one of the commissioners as chairman. One or two vacancies on the Board shall not impair the right of the remaining commissioners to exercise all the powers of the Board.
The commissioner shall serve without compensation: Provided, That each Commissioner shall be paid per diem in lieu of subsistence and other expenses at a rate that does not exceed the rate authorized by section 5703 of title 5 to be paid to persons serving without compensation.
Notes of Decisions
Native Am. Arts, Inc. v. The Waldron Corp., 399 F.3d 871 (7th Cir. 2005).
· cites it 2× “The Indian Arts and Crafts Act, 25 U.S.C. §§ 305 et seq., forbids (so far as bears on this case) selling a good “in a manner that falsely suggests it is .”
Native Am. Arts, Inc. v. Peter Stone Co., U.S.A., 222 F. Supp. 3d 643 (N.D. Ill. 2016).
· cites it 2× “ANALYSIS The underlying facts of this case, which the plaintiff brought against the defendant under the Indian Arts and Crafts Act (“IACA”), 25 U.S.C. § 305 , have been discussed at length in the ruling on the defendant’s motion for summary judgment and will not be revisited…”
Navajo Nation v. Urban Outfitters, Inc., 935 F. Supp. 2d 1147 (D.N.M. 2013).
“In Count Four, Plaintiffs allege that Defendants violated the Indian Arts and Crafts Act, 25 U.S.C. § 305 et seq., (“IACA”) by offering, advertising, marketing, displaying for sale, and selling goods that falsely suggest Defendants’ products are products of an Indian Tribe, when…”
Navajo Nation v. Urban Outfitters, Inc., 918 F. Supp. 2d 1245 (D.N.M. 2013).
“In Count Four, Plaintiffs allege that Defendants violated the Indian Arts and Crafts Act, 25 U.S.C. § 305 et seq., (“IACA”) by offering, advertising, marketing, displaying for sale, and selling goods that falsely suggest Defendants’ products are products of an Indian Tribe, when…”
Native Am. Arts, Inc. v. Mangalick Enter., Inc., 633 F. Supp. 2d 591 (N.D. Ill. 2009).
“The Indian Arts and Crafts Act of 1990, as amended by the Indian Arts and Crafts Enforcement Act of 2000 ( 25 U.S.C. § 305 et seq. (2000)) (“the Act”), authorizes an “Indian arts and craft organization ]” to file suit against “a person who, directly or indirectly, offers or…”
Native Am. Arts, Inc. v. Specialty Merch. Corp., 451 F. Supp. 2d 1080 (C.D. Cal. 2006).
“It alleges that defendants violated The Indian Arts and Crafts Act of 1990, and The Indian Arts and Crafts Enforcement Act of 2000 (collectively, the “LACA”), 25 U.S.C. §§ 305 et seq. The IACA prohibits the sale (or the offering for sale) of a good “in a manner that falsely…”
Native Am. Arts, Inc. v. Vill. Originals, Inc., 25 F. Supp. 2d 876 (N.D. Ill. 1998).
“The primary basis for the plaintiffs’ case is violation of the Indian Arts and Craft Act of 1990 (IACA), 25 U.S.C. § 305 (a). The IACA imposes civil liability upon an individual who “offers or displays for sale or sells a good, with or without a Government trademark, in a manner…”
Native Am. Arts, Inc. v. Contract Specialties, Inc., 754 F. Supp. 2d 386 (D.R.I. 2010).
“NAA has sued Specialties for violations of the Indian Arts and Crafts Act of 1990 and *388 the Indian Arts and Crafts Enforcement Act of 2000 (collectively, the “IACA”), 25 U.S.C. § 305 et seq., which forbids the offer or sale of a good in a manner that falsely suggests it is an…”
Hornell Brewing Co. v. Rosebud Sioux Tribal Court, 133 F.3d 1087 (8th Cir. 1998).
“§§ 1051-1128 (1994), and the Indian Arts and Crafts Act, see 25 U.S.C. §§ 305 -305e (1994). The Es-fate sought injunctive and declaratory relief, as well as damages.”
Native Am. Arts, Inc. v. Chico Arts, Inc., 8 F. Supp. 2d 1066 (N.D. Ill. 1998).
“Count I alleges violation of the Indian Arts and Crafts Act of 1990 (“LACA”), 25 U.S.C. § 305 et seq. Count II alleges violation of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act (“Consumer Fraud Act”), 815 ILCS 505/2.”
Fontenot v. Hunter, 378 F. Supp. 3d 1075 (W.D. Okla. 2019).
· cites it 2× “2 Plaintiff further contends that the State Act "unconstitutionally frustrates the purpose of the [federal Indian Arts and Crafts Act of 1990, 25 U.S.C. §§ 305 - 305f ("IACA") ] in violation of the Supremacy Clause.”
Native Am. Arts, Inc. v. Hartford Cas. Ins., 435 F.3d 729 (7th Cir. 2006).
“If this proved to be true, the complaints asserted, the defendants’ actions would violate the Indian Arts and Crafts Act, 25 U.S.C. § 305 , et seq., which forbids selling merchandise “in a manner that falsely suggests it is .”
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.