25 U.S.C. § 465
Transferred
[transferred]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 237
cases (8 in the last 5 years), 1937–2026 · leading case: Carcieri v. Salazar, 555 U.S. 379 (2009).
Carcieri v. Salazar, 555 U.S. 379 (2009). “985 , 25 U. S. C. §465 . The IRA defines the term “Indian” to “include all persons of Indian descent who are members of any recog nized Indian tribe now under Federal jurisdiction.”
Michigan Gambling Opposition v. Kempthorne, 525 F.3d 23 (D.C. Cir. 2008). “, and that section 5 of the Indian Reorganization Act ("IRA"), 25 U.S.C. § 465 , was unconstitutional. The district court granted summary judgment to the DOI, and MichGO appeals.”
Bd. of Equalization v. Alaska Native Bhd. & Sisterhood, Camp No. 14, 666 P.2d 1015 (Alaska 1983). “The superior court ruled that it is exempt under 25 U.S.C. § 465 (1934). For the reasons set forth below, we conclude that this ruling is incorrect.”
United States v. Roberts, 185 F.3d 1125 (10th Cir. 1999). “for the purpose of providing land for Indians. Title to any lands or rights acquired pursuant to sections .”
Match-E-Be-Nash-She-Wish Band of Pottawatomi Indians v. Patchak, 132 S. Ct. 2199 (2012). “” 25 U. S. C. §465 . Petitioner Match-E-Be-Nash-She-Wish Band of Pottawatomi Indians (Band), an Indian tribe federally recog- nized in 1999, requested that the Secretary take into trust on its be- half a tract of land known as the Bradley Property, which the Band intended to use…”
Carcieri v. Norton, 398 F.3d 22 (1st Cir. 2005). “576, § 5, codified as 25 U.S.C. § 465 (2004). The deed transferring the Settlement Lands to the Bureau of Indian Affairs (“BIA”) expressly recognized that this transfer into trust “does not alter the applicability of state law conferred by the Rhode Island Indian Land Claims…”
Upstate Citizens for Equality, Inc. v. United States, 841 F.3d 556 (2d Cir. 2016). “urt that the entrustment procedure generally, and this entrustment in particular, lie within the federal government’s long-recognized “plenary” power over Indian tribes: Neither principles of state sovereignty nor the Constitution’s Enclave Clause—which requires state consent…”
Carcieri v. Kempthorne, 497 F.3d 15 (1st Cir. 2005). “In 1998, the Secretary of the Interior agreed to take into unreserved trust for the Tribe’s benefit a 31- or 32-acre parcel in Charlestown, Rhode Island (the Parcel).”
South Dakota v. United States Dep't of the Interior, 314 F. Supp. 2d 935 (D.S.D. 2004). “The state of South Dakota, city of Oaco-ma, and Lyman County (“plaintiffs”), filed suit in this Court seeking declaratory and injunctive relief to prevent the defendants (“Interior”) from taking a 91-acre parcel of land (“Oacoma parcel”) into trust for the Lower Brule Sioux…”
Seminole Tribe of Florida v. Marshall Stranburg, 799 F.3d 1324 (11th Cir. 2015). “With respect to the Rental Tax, the court concluded that 25 U.S.C. § 465 expressly prohibits the Rental Tax because the Rental Tax is a tax on Indian land rights.”
Beulah Chase v. Roland McMasters Jack Smith, Jr., Wayne Turner, Arlyn Wadholm & Russel Pederson, 573 F.2d 1011 (8th Cir. 1978). “Under 25 U.S.C. § 465 , title to such lands is taken by the United States in trust for the Indian or Indian tribe, and the land is exempt from state and local taxation.”
Carcieri v. Norton, 290 F. Supp. 2d 167 (D.R.I. 2003). “In 1988, following application by the tribe, the settlement lands were accepted into trust by the secretary for the Narragansetts’ benefit pursuant to Section 5 of the Indian Reorganization Act of 1934 (“IRA”), 25 U.”
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.