25 U.S.C. § 450n
Transferred
[transferred]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 10
cases, 1979–2019 · leading case: Michigan v. Bay Mills Indian Cmty., 134 S. Ct. 2024 (2014).
Michigan v. Bay Mills Indian Cmty., 134 S. Ct. 2024 (2014). “, 25 U. S. C. §450n; see generally Potawatomi, 498 U.”
World Fuel Servs. v. Nambe Pueblo Dev., 362 F. Supp. 3d 1021 (D.N.M. 2019). “See 25 U.S.C. § 450n(1) (nothing in ISDA "shall be construed as .”
Pink v. Modoc Indian Health Proj., Inc., 157 F.3d 1185 (9th Cir. 1998). “1992); see also 25 U.S.C. § 450n (stating that nothing in the ISDEAA shall be construed as waiving a tribe’s sovereign immunity).”
Brown v. United States, 42 Fed. Cl. 538 (Fed. Cl. 1998). “25 U.S.C. § 450n; 25 C.F.R. § 271.1 (c). Thus the government is the sole fiduciary and remained the sole fiduciary even when the Tribe undertook the government’s functions under the lease.”
Fairbanks v. Dená Nená Henash, 88 P.3d 124 (Alaska 2004). “§ 450 (a) ("the Federal government's historical and special legal relationship"); 25 U.S.C. § 450n ("Nothing in this subchapter shall be construed as .”
Evans v. McKay, 869 F.2d 1341 (9th Cir. 1989). “] 25 U.S.C. § 450n(l). In light of this clear Congressional directive, and our own analysis of the relevant statutory and contractual provisions, we hold that neither section 102(c) nor the Tribe-BIA contract constitute a waiver of the Tribe’s sovereign immunity.”
Demontiney v. United States ex rel. Dep't of Interior, 255 F.3d 801 (9th Cir. 2001). “” 25 U.S.C. § 450n(1); see also Pink v. Modoc Indian Health Project, Inc.”
Cogo v. Cent. Council of the Tlingit & Haida Indians, 465 F. Supp. 1286 (D. Alaska 1979). “25 U.S.C. § 450n. Since this suit relates to the Central Council’s authority in managing the judgment fund, the status of the Central Council for the purpose of sovereign immunity is determined by the statutes concerning that judgment fund.”
Krystal Energy Co. v. Navajo Nation (In Re Krystal Energy Co.), 308 B.R. 48 (D. Ariz. 2002). “, 25 U.S.C. § 450n (“Nothing in this sub-chapter shall.”
McVay v. Allied World Assurance Co., 16 F. Supp. 3d 1202 (D. Nev. 2014). “” 25 U.S.C.A. § 450n(l). Claims based on tribal activities taken pursuant to a self-determination contract are treated as claims against the United States and must be pursued under the Federal Tort Claims Act.”
— 25 U.S.C. § 450n(1) — 2 cases
World Fuel Servs. v. Nambe Pueblo Dev., 362 F. Supp. 3d 1021 (D.N.M. 2019). “See 25 U.S.C. § 450n(1) (nothing in ISDA "shall be construed as .”
Demontiney v. United States ex rel. Dep't of Interior, 255 F.3d 801 (9th Cir. 2001). “” 25 U.S.C. § 450n(1); see also Pink v. Modoc Indian Health Project, Inc.”
— 25 U.S.C. § 450n(l) — 3 cases
Evans v. McKay, 869 F.2d 1341 (9th Cir. 1989). “] 25 U.S.C. § 450n(l). In light of this clear Congressional directive, and our own analysis of the relevant statutory and contractual provisions, we hold that neither section 102(c) nor the Tribe-BIA contract constitute a waiver of the Tribe’s sovereign immunity.”
Pink v. Modoc Indian Health Proj., Inc., 157 F.3d 1185 (9th Cir. 1998). “1992); see also 25 U.S.C. § 450n (stating that nothing in the ISDEAA shall be construed as waiving a tribe’s sovereign immunity).”
McVay v. Allied World Assurance Co., 16 F. Supp. 3d 1202 (D. Nev. 2014). “” 25 U.S.C.A. § 450n(l). Claims based on tribal activities taken pursuant to a self-determination contract are treated as claims against the United States and must be pursued under the Federal Tort Claims Act.”
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.