Notes of Decisions
State of New York v. Mountain Tobacco Co., 942 F.3d 536 (2d Cir. 2019).
“On the contrary, Congress’s choice not to separately define “Indian‐owned business” in the CCTA would suggest that it did not intend to distinguish such businesses from individual Indians: when it wishes to make such a distinction, it knows how to do so. Cf. Dole Food Co.”
Native Am. Arts, Inc. v. Contract Specialties, Inc., 754 F. Supp. 2d 386 (D.R.I. 2010).
· cites it 8× “Supp.2d at 597 ; see also H.R. Rep. No. 101-400(I), at 15 (1990) (showing that the IACA of 1990 did away with the scienter requirement of an earlier version of the statute by deleting its “willfully” language).”
United States v. Violet Bruce, 394 F.3d 1215 (9th Cir. 2005).
“§ 1159 (c)(1) (1994), 25 U.S.C. § 305e(d)(2) (1994) (defining “Indian” as "any individual who is a member of an Indian tribe; or for the purposes of this section is certified as an Indian artisan by an Indian tribe”) (emphasis added); ROBERT N.”
Native Am. Arts, Inc. v. Mangalick Enter., Inc., 633 F. Supp. 2d 591 (N.D. Ill. 2009).
· cites it 4× “(2000)) (“the Act”), authorizes an “Indian arts and craft organization ]” to file suit against “a person who, directly or indirectly, offers or displays for sale or sells a good * * * in a manner that falsely suggests it is Indian produced [or] an Indian product * * 25 U.S.C. §…”
Native Am. Arts, Inc. v. JC Penney Co., Inc., 5 F. Supp. 2d 599 (N.D. Ill. 1998).
· cites it 7× “25 U.S.C. § 305e(a) (1994). Since 1990, NAA claims, several Penney’s stores in Illinois have sold imitation Indian arts and crafts that the stores misrepresent as genuine Indian-made products, including Indian-style baskets, feather earrings, necklaces, pendants, and statues.”
Native Am. Arts, Inc. v. the Waldron Corp., 253 F. Supp. 2d 1041 (N.D. Ill. 2003).
“MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Before an amendment to the Indian Arts and Crafts Act (the “Act”), 25 U.S.C. § 305e, only a Native American tribe could bring a private party lawsuit under the Act.”
Native Am. Arts, Inc. v. Vill. Originals, Inc., 25 F. Supp. 2d 876 (N.D. Ill. 1998).
· cites it 2× “(Village Originals), alleging violations of the Indian Arts and Crafts Act of 1990 (IACA), 25 U.S.C. § 305e (count I), unfair and deceptive trade practices in violation of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act, 815 ILCS 505/2 and the Uniform Deceptive…”
United States v. Pourhassan, 148 F. Supp. 2d 1185 (D. Utah 2001).
· cites it 2× “§ 1159’s civil counterpart, 25 U.S.C. § 305e, and concluded that the statute “does implicate First Amendment scrutiny since it involves the expressive aspects of commercial advertising.”
Native Am. Arts, Inc. v. Chico Arts, Inc., 8 F. Supp. 2d 1066 (N.D. Ill. 1998).
· cites it 3× “Count I 25 U.S.C. § 305e(a) states that: [a] person specified in subsection (c) of this section may, in a civil action in a court of competent jurisdiction, bring an action against a person who offers or displays for sale or sells a good, with or without a Government trademark,…”
Native Am. Arts, Inc. v. Specialty Merch. Corp., 451 F. Supp. 2d 1080 (C.D. Cal. 2006).
“The IACA prohibits the sale (or the offering for sale) of a good “in a manner that falsely suggests it is Indian produced, an Indian product, or the product of a particular Indian or Indian tribe or Indian arts and crafts organization.”
— 25 U.S.C. § 305e(a) — 3 cases
Native Am. Arts, Inc. v. Mangalick Enter., Inc., 633 F. Supp. 2d 591 (N.D. Ill. 2009).
“(2000)) (“the Act”), authorizes an “Indian arts and craft organization ]” to file suit against “a person who, directly or indirectly, offers or displays for sale or sells a good * * * in a manner that falsely suggests it is Indian produced [or] an Indian product * * 25 U.S.C. §…”
Native Am. Arts, Inc. v. JC Penney Co., Inc., 5 F. Supp. 2d 599 (N.D. Ill. 1998).
“25 U.S.C. § 305e(a) (1994). Since 1990, NAA claims, several Penney’s stores in Illinois have sold imitation Indian arts and crafts that the stores misrepresent as genuine Indian-made products, including Indian-style baskets, feather earrings, necklaces, pendants, and statues.”
Native Am. Arts, Inc. v. Chico Arts, Inc., 8 F. Supp. 2d 1066 (N.D. Ill. 1998).
“Count I 25 U.S.C. § 305e(a) states that: [a] person specified in subsection (c) of this section may, in a civil action in a court of competent jurisdiction, bring an action against a person who offers or displays for sale or sells a good, with or without a Government trademark,…”
— 25 U.S.C. § 305e(a)(1) — 2 cases
State of New York v. Mountain Tobacco Co., 942 F.3d 536 (2d Cir. 2019).
“On the contrary, Congress’s choice not to separately define “Indian‐owned business” in the CCTA would suggest that it did not intend to distinguish such businesses from individual Indians: when it wishes to make such a distinction, it knows how to do so. Cf. Dole Food Co.”
— 25 U.S.C. § 305e(a)(2) — 4 cases
Native Am. Arts, Inc. v. Contract Specialties, Inc., 754 F. Supp. 2d 386 (D.R.I. 2010).
“Supp.2d at 597 ; see also H.R. Rep. No. 101-400(I), at 15 (1990) (showing that the IACA of 1990 did away with the scienter requirement of an earlier version of the statute by deleting its “willfully” language).”
— 25 U.S.C. § 305e(a)(l) — 1 case
Native Am. Arts, Inc. v. Mangalick Enter., Inc., 633 F. Supp. 2d 591 (N.D. Ill. 2009).
“(2000)) (“the Act”), authorizes an “Indian arts and craft organization ]” to file suit against “a person who, directly or indirectly, offers or displays for sale or sells a good * * * in a manner that falsely suggests it is Indian produced [or] an Indian product * * 25 U.S.C. §…”
— 25 U.S.C. § 305e(b) — 3 cases
Native Am. Arts, Inc. v. Contract Specialties, Inc., 754 F. Supp. 2d 386 (D.R.I. 2010).
“Supp.2d at 597 ; see also H.R. Rep. No. 101-400(I), at 15 (1990) (showing that the IACA of 1990 did away with the scienter requirement of an earlier version of the statute by deleting its “willfully” language).”
— 25 U.S.C. § 305e(b)(2)(B) — 1 case
Native Am. Arts, Inc. v. Contract Specialties, Inc., 754 F. Supp. 2d 386 (D.R.I. 2010).
“Supp.2d at 597 ; see also H.R. Rep. No. 101-400(I), at 15 (1990) (showing that the IACA of 1990 did away with the scienter requirement of an earlier version of the statute by deleting its “willfully” language).”
— 25 U.S.C. § 305e(c) — 3 cases
Native Am. Arts, Inc. v. Chico Arts, Inc., 8 F. Supp. 2d 1066 (N.D. Ill. 1998).
“Count I 25 U.S.C. § 305e(a) states that: [a] person specified in subsection (c) of this section may, in a civil action in a court of competent jurisdiction, bring an action against a person who offers or displays for sale or sells a good, with or without a Government trademark,…”
— 25 U.S.C. § 305e(c)(1)(C) — 1 case
Native Am. Arts, Inc. v. Contract Specialties, Inc., 754 F. Supp. 2d 386 (D.R.I. 2010).
“Supp.2d at 597 ; see also H.R. Rep. No. 101-400(I), at 15 (1990) (showing that the IACA of 1990 did away with the scienter requirement of an earlier version of the statute by deleting its “willfully” language).”
— 25 U.S.C. § 305e(c)(l) — 1 case
— 25 U.S.C. § 305e(d)(2) — 3 cases
United States v. Violet Bruce, 394 F.3d 1215 (9th Cir. 2005).
“§ 1159 (c)(1) (1994), 25 U.S.C. § 305e(d)(2) (1994) (defining “Indian” as "any individual who is a member of an Indian tribe; or for the purposes of this section is certified as an Indian artisan by an Indian tribe”) (emphasis added); ROBERT N.”
Native Am. Arts, Inc. v. Mangalick Enter., Inc., 633 F. Supp. 2d 591 (N.D. Ill. 2009).
“(2000)) (“the Act”), authorizes an “Indian arts and craft organization ]” to file suit against “a person who, directly or indirectly, offers or displays for sale or sells a good * * * in a manner that falsely suggests it is Indian produced [or] an Indian product * * 25 U.S.C. §…”
— 25 U.S.C. § 305e(d)(3) — 2 cases
Native Am. Arts, Inc. v. JC Penney Co., Inc., 5 F. Supp. 2d 599 (N.D. Ill. 1998).
“25 U.S.C. § 305e(a) (1994). Since 1990, NAA claims, several Penney’s stores in Illinois have sold imitation Indian arts and crafts that the stores misrepresent as genuine Indian-made products, including Indian-style baskets, feather earrings, necklaces, pendants, and statues.”
— 25 U.S.C. § 305e(d)(4) — 2 cases
Native Am. Arts, Inc. v. JC Penney Co., Inc., 5 F. Supp. 2d 599 (N.D. Ill. 1998).
“25 U.S.C. § 305e(a) (1994). Since 1990, NAA claims, several Penney’s stores in Illinois have sold imitation Indian arts and crafts that the stores misrepresent as genuine Indian-made products, including Indian-style baskets, feather earrings, necklaces, pendants, and statues.”
Native Am. Arts, Inc. v. Vill. Originals, Inc., 25 F. Supp. 2d 876 (N.D. Ill. 1998).
“(Village Originals), alleging violations of the Indian Arts and Crafts Act of 1990 (IACA), 25 U.S.C. § 305e (count I), unfair and deceptive trade practices in violation of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act, 815 ILCS 505/2 and the Uniform Deceptive…”
— 25 U.S.C. § 305e(d)(l) — 1 case
Native Am. Arts, Inc. v. Contract Specialties, Inc., 754 F. Supp. 2d 386 (D.R.I. 2010).
“Supp.2d at 597 ; see also H.R. Rep. No. 101-400(I), at 15 (1990) (showing that the IACA of 1990 did away with the scienter requirement of an earlier version of the statute by deleting its “willfully” language).”
— 25 U.S.C. § 305e(d)(l)(D) — 1 case
Native Am. Arts, Inc. v. Contract Specialties, Inc., 754 F. Supp. 2d 386 (D.R.I. 2010).
“Supp.2d at 597 ; see also H.R. Rep. No. 101-400(I), at 15 (1990) (showing that the IACA of 1990 did away with the scienter requirement of an earlier version of the statute by deleting its “willfully” language).”
— 25 U.S.C. § 305e(e)(2) — 1 case
Native Am. Arts, Inc. v. JC Penney Co., Inc., 5 F. Supp. 2d 599 (N.D. Ill. 1998).
“25 U.S.C. § 305e(a) (1994). Since 1990, NAA claims, several Penney’s stores in Illinois have sold imitation Indian arts and crafts that the stores misrepresent as genuine Indian-made products, including Indian-style baskets, feather earrings, necklaces, pendants, and statues.”
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.