25 U.S.C. § 450e
Transferred
[transferred]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 18
cases, 1982–2006 · leading case: Vernon Solomon v. Interior Reg'l Hous. Auth., 313 F.3d 1194 (9th Cir. 2002).
Vernon Solomon v. Interior Reg'l Hous. Auth., 313 F.3d 1194 (9th Cir. 2002). “Here, the operative wording of 25 U.S.C. § 450e does not refer to individual Indians.”
Johnson v. Cent. Valley Sch. Dist. No. 356, 645 P.2d 1088 (Wash. 1982). “The first question we will examine is whether the district, in choosing the applicant which it found, on the advice of the advisory committee, to be the best qualified, violated 25 U.S.C. § 450e(b) et seq. (Indian Self-Determination Act) or RCW 49.”
Delbert Wheeler Constr., Inc. v. United States, 39 Fed. Cl. 239 (Fed. Cl. 1997). “Criteria I, Training and Employment of Native Americans, was an important policy objective, established in light of 25 U.S.C. § 450e. Accordingly, Criteria I was given greater weight than the other criteria — offerors could accumulate more points for addressing this objective…”
Susan Holz v. Nenana City Pub. Sch. Dist. Terry Bentley Joanne Romero Endil Moore, 347 F.3d 1176 (9th Cir. 2003). “25 U.S.C. § 450e. 2 . 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 , 2000d, 2000e-2; Alaska Stat.”
Albuquerque Indian Rights v. Manuel Lujan, Jr., in His Trust Capacity as Sec'y of the Interior, 930 F.2d 49 (D.C. Cir. 1991). “Count III of the Amended Complaint alleged that appellees violated the Buy Indian Act, 25 U.S.C. § 450e(b)(2) (1988), when they awarded a "Support Design and Engineering Services” contract for OCM technical support to a non-Indian engineering firm.”
Solomon v. Interior Reg'l Hous. Auth., 140 P.3d 882 (Alaska 2006). “25 U.S.C. § 450e(b) (2000). 3 . Solomon v.”
Campesinos Unidos, Inc. v. United States Dep't of Labor, Ctr. for Emp. Training, Intervenor-Respondent, 803 F.2d 1063 (9th Cir. 1986). “That case arose under both CETA and the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act, 25 U.S.C. § 450e (1982). The latter act has, as one of its objectives, the encouragement of Indian-controlled delivery organizations.”
Schmasow v. Native Am. Ctr., 1999 MT 49 (Mont. 1999). “¶ 6 At issue in this case is the Indian employment preference provision of the Indian Self-Determination Act found at 25 U.S.C. § 450e(b). Section 450e(b) requires that an Indian be given an employment preference for any position filled under "any contracts .”
Robert Malabed v. North Slope Borough, Morris David Welch v. North Slope Borough, Charles Michael Emerson v. North Slope Borough, 335 F.3d 864 (9th Cir. 2003). “The Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act, 25 U.S.C. § 450e(b), for example, is unequivocal: Any contract, subcontract, grant, or sub-grant pursuant to this [Act] .”
PENOBSCOT NATION, Appellant, v. Cynthia A. FELLENCER, Appellee, 164 F.3d 706 (1st Cir. 1999). “25 U.S.C. § 450e(b) (requiring that “preferences and opportunities for training and employment .”
Preston v. Heckler, 734 F.2d 1359 (9th Cir. 1984). “1982) (upholding, in the face of an equal protection challenge, preferences to Indian-owned economic enterprises in awarding contracts to build houses for Indians under 25 U.S.C. § 450e(b) (1982), which is designed to facilitate Indian economic development).”
Little v. Devils Lake-Sioux Mfg. Corp., 607 F. Supp. 700 (D.N.D. 1985). “Defendant contends the above exclusion applies in this case, and it has a “publicly announced employment practice” of preferring American Indians by virtue of the provisions of 25 U.S.C. § 450e. Section 450e(b) provides in relevant part: Any contract, subcontract, grant, or…”
— 25 U.S.C. § 450e(b) — 12 cases
Vernon Solomon v. Interior Reg'l Hous. Auth., 313 F.3d 1194 (9th Cir. 2002). “Here, the operative wording of 25 U.S.C. § 450e does not refer to individual Indians.”
Johnson v. Cent. Valley Sch. Dist. No. 356, 645 P.2d 1088 (Wash. 1982). “The first question we will examine is whether the district, in choosing the applicant which it found, on the advice of the advisory committee, to be the best qualified, violated 25 U.S.C. § 450e(b) et seq. (Indian Self-Determination Act) or RCW 49.”
Solomon v. Interior Reg'l Hous. Auth., 140 P.3d 882 (Alaska 2006). “25 U.S.C. § 450e(b) (2000). 3 . Solomon v.”
Schmasow v. Native Am. Ctr., 1999 MT 49 (Mont. 1999). “¶ 6 At issue in this case is the Indian employment preference provision of the Indian Self-Determination Act found at 25 U.S.C. § 450e(b). Section 450e(b) requires that an Indian be given an employment preference for any position filled under "any contracts .”
Robert Malabed v. North Slope Borough, Morris David Welch v. North Slope Borough, Charles Michael Emerson v. North Slope Borough, 335 F.3d 864 (9th Cir. 2003). “The Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act, 25 U.S.C. § 450e(b), for example, is unequivocal: Any contract, subcontract, grant, or sub-grant pursuant to this [Act] .”
— 25 U.S.C. § 450e(b)(2) — 1 case
Albuquerque Indian Rights v. Manuel Lujan, Jr., in His Trust Capacity as Sec'y of the Interior, 930 F.2d 49 (D.C. Cir. 1991). “Count III of the Amended Complaint alleged that appellees violated the Buy Indian Act, 25 U.S.C. § 450e(b)(2) (1988), when they awarded a "Support Design and Engineering Services” contract for OCM technical support to a non-Indian engineering firm.”
— 25 U.S.C. § 450e(c) — 1 case
Stago v. Wide Ruins Cmty. Sch., Inc., 8 Navajo Rptr. 118 (2001).
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.