25 U.S.C. § 463
Transferred
[transferred]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 33
cases, 1957–2015 · leading case: Marceau v. Blackfeet Hous. Auth., 540 F.3d 916 (9th Cir. 2008).
Marceau v. Blackfeet Hous. Auth., 540 F.3d 916 (9th Cir. 2008). “25 U.S.C. § 463 . In the 1950s, federal Indian policy shifted yet again as Congress adopted a "termination policy.”
Michigan Gambling Opposition v. Kempthorne, 525 F.3d 23 (D.C. Cir. 2008). “, 25 U.S.C. § 463 , this does not detract from the overall purposes of the statute.”
Cobell, Elouise v. Norton, Gale A., 240 F.3d 1081 (D.C. Cir. 2001). “25 U.S.C. § 463 . Rather than • undo the assimilationist allotment polices, the 1934 Act extended the trust period for allotted lands indefinitely.”
United States v. Hess, 194 F.3d 1164 (10th Cir. 1999). “(citing 25 U.S.C. § 463 ). As a result of this and other acts of Congress, the Southern Ute Tribe’s reservation became a checkerboard of different types of ownership interests including tribal lands held in trust by the United States for the benefit of the Tribe, lands held by…”
Oneida Tribe of Indians v. Vill. of Hobart, 542 F. Supp. 2d 908 (E.D. Wis. 2008). “25 U.S.C. §§ 463 , 465. The IRA also “permitted tribes to organize and adopt constitutions with a congressional sanction of self-government, and it permitted tribes to form business committees or business corporations.”
Crow Tribe of Indians v. United States, 657 F. Supp. 573 (D. Mont. 1985). “Under § 3 of the IRA, 25 U.S.C. § 463 (a), the Secretary of the Interi- or was authorized to restore to tribal ownership “the remaining surplus lands of any Indian reservation opened before June 18, 1934.”
Morton v. Ruiz, 415 U.S. 199 (1974). “67 ; and 25 U. S. C. § 463 . See Papago Tribe v. United States, 19 Ind.”
Confederated Tribes of Coos, Lower Umpqua & Siuslaw Indians v. Babbitt, 116 F. Supp. 2d 155 (D.D.C. 2000). “25 U.S.C. § 463 states: “The Secretary of the Interior .”
Beulah Chase v. Roland McMasters Jack Smith, Jr., Wayne Turner, Arlyn Wadholm & Russel Pederson, 573 F.2d 1011 (8th Cir. 1978). “§ 462 , restored unallotted “surplus” lands to tribal sovereignty, 25 U.S.C. § 463 , and made voluntary exchanges and transfers of land to tribes exempt from the prohibition against transfers of restricted Indian land.”
Anderson & Middleton Lumber Co. v. Quinault Indian Nation, 929 P.2d 379 (Wash. 1996). “25 U.S.C. § 463 . County of Yakima, 112 S.”
Ute Indian Tribe v. State of Utah, 521 F. Supp. 1072 (D. Utah 1981). “25 U.S.C. §§ 463 , 467. Further the Commission of Indian Affairs recommended restoration of the lands citing section 3 as authority without reference to section 7, JX 450, supra.”
Bowman v. Udall, 243 F. Supp. 672 (D.D.C. 1965). “984 , 986, 25 U.S.C. §§ 463 , 467. The background of this litigation is as follows: The San Carlos Indian Reservation in Arizona was created by Executive Order dated December 14,1872.”
— 25 U.S.C. § 463(a) — 1 case
Assiniboine & Sioux Tribes v. R. E. Nordwick, 378 F.2d 426 (9th Cir. 1967).
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.