25 U.S.C. § 461
Transferred
[transferred]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 297
cases (7 in the last 5 years), 1937–2026 · leading case: Washington v. Confederated Tribes of the Colville Indian Reservation, 447 U.S. 134 (1980).
Washington v. Confederated Tribes of the Colville Indian Reservation, 447 U.S. 134 (1980). “984 , 25 U. S. C. § 461 et seq., the Indian Financing Act of 1975, 88 Stat.”
Cnty. of Yakima v. Confederated Tribes & Bands of the Yakima Indian Nation, 502 U.S. 251 (1992). “984 , 25 U. S. C. § 461 et seq. Returning to the principles of tribal self-determination and self-governance which had characterized the pre-Dawes Act era, Congress halted further allotments and extended indefinitely the existing periods of trust applicable to already allotted…”
Carcieri v. Salazar, 555 U.S. 379 (2009). “6177 , and with that recognition the Tribe qualified for the bundle of fed eral benefits established in the Indian Reorganization Act of 1934 (IRA or Act),4 25 U. S. C. §461 et seq. The Tribe’s attempt to exercise one of those rights, the ability to peti tion the Secretary to…”
Mescalero Apache Tribe v. Jones, 411 U.S. 145 (1973). “984 , as amended, 25 U. S. C. § 461 et seq. [1] After a feasibility study by the Bureau of Indian Affairs, equipment and construction money was provided by a loan from the Federal Government under § 10 of the Act, 25 U.”
Montana v. United States, 450 U.S. 544 (1981). “And it is hardly likely that Congress could have imagined that the purpose of peaceful assimilation could be advanced if feeholders could be excluded from fishing or hunting on their acquired property. The policy of allotment and sale of surplus reservation land was, of course,…”
Plains Com. Bank v. Long Fam. Land & Cattle Co., 554 U.S. 316 (2008). “984 , 25 U. S. C. §461 et seq., which “pu[t] an end to further allot- ment of reservation land,” but did not “return allotted land to pre-General Allotment status, leaving it fully alienable by the allottees, their heirs, and assigns.”
United States v. Fausto, 484 U.S. 439 (1988). “984 , 25 U. S. C. § 461 et seq. ). But repeal by implication of a legal disposition implied by a statutory text is something else.”
White Mountain Apache Tribe v. Bracker, 448 U.S. 136 (1980). “, as well as the Indian Reorganization Act of 1934, 25 U. S. C. § 461 et seq., whose "intent and purpose .”
Atkinson Trading Co. v. Shirley, 532 U.S. 645 (2001). “, which authorized the issuance of patents in fee to individual Indian allottees who, after holding the patent for 25 years, could then transfer the land to non-Indians.”
Merrion v. Jicarilla Apache Tribe, 455 U.S. 130 (1982). “984 , 25 U. S. C. §461 et seq., which authorizes any tribe residing on a reservation to adopt a constitution and bylaws, subject to the approval of the' Secretary of the Interior (Secretary).”
Nevada v. United States, 463 U.S. 110 (1983). “984 , 25 U. S. C. § 461 et seq., it may well appear that Congress was requiring the Secretary of the Interior to carry water on at least two shoulders when it delegated to him both the responsibility for the supervision of the Indian tribes and the commencement of reclamation…”
Montana v. Blackfeet Tribe of Indians, 471 U.S. 759 (1985). “984 , 25 U. S. C. § 461 et seq. (IRA). Since the 1938 Act was adopted specifically to harmonize Indian leasing laws with the IRA, Congress could not have intended the 1924 Act to apply to leases issued under the 1938 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.