25 U.S.C. § 466
Transferred
[transferred]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 36
cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1943–2021 · leading case: United States v. Mitchell, 463 U.S. 206 (1983).
United States v. Mitchell, 463 U.S. 206 (1983). “25 U. S. C. § 466 . Under these statutes, the Secretary has promulgated detailed regulations governing the management of Indian timber.”
United States v. Mitchell, 445 U.S. 535 (1980). “See 25 U. S. C. § 466 (instructing the Secretary of the Interior to manage Indian forests on a sustained-yield basis); §§ 323-325 (authorizing the Secretary to grant rights-of-way over Indian trust lands upon payment of just compensation); § 162a (authorizing the Secretary to…”
White Mountain Apache Tribe v. Bracker, 448 U.S. 136 (1980). “25 U. S. C. § 466 . Acting pursuant to this authority, the Secretary has promulgated a detailed set of regulations to govern the harvesting *147 and sale of tribal timber.”
United States v. George Anderson, 625 F.2d 910 (9th Cir. 1980). “IRA § 6, 25 U.S.C. § 466 . Like many other tribes, the Fort Peck Tribes adopted a land-use program based on.”
Mitchell v. United States, 229 Ct. Cl. 1 (Ct. Cl. 1981). “§§406-407 (1976) (timber sales); 25 U.S.C. §466 (1976) (regulations and sustained yield); and 25 U.”
Navajo Tribe of Indians v. United States, 9 Cl. Ct. 336 (Ct. Cl. 1986). “Reorganization Act, 25 U.S.C. § 466 (1983), the following: § 466.”
Oglala Sioux Tribe of the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation v. United States, 21 Cl. Ct. 176 (Ct. Cl. 1990). “Part 166 implements § 6 of the IRA, 25 U.S.C. § 466 , it is indisputable that the regulations contained in that part impose management duties over grazing lands that will support a claim within the jurisdiction of this court.”
White Mountain Apache Tribe v. United States, 11 Cl. Ct. 614 (Ct. Cl. 1987). “In § 6 of the Act, now codified as 25 U.S.C. § 466 , Congress expressly directed that the Interior Department manage Indian forest resources “on the principle of sustained-yield management.”
Mitchell v. United States, 13 Cl. Ct. 474 (Ct. Cl. 1987). “The regeneration claims addressed the related contention that the Secretary of Interior had failed to manage plaintiffs’ timber in accordance with the forestry practices necessary to achieve the “sustained-yield management” prescribed by 25 U.S.C. § 466 (1982). Upon examination…”
The Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs Reservation of Oregon & Warm Springs Forest Prods. Indus. v. United States, 248 F.3d 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2001). “See 25 U.S.C. § 466 . By 1989, the total amount of timber harvested from the McQuinn Strip exceeded the amount that was to be harvested under the 20-year management plan.”
Franklin Sav. Corp. v. United States, 56 Fed. Cl. 720 (Fed. Cl. 2003). “Similarly, the Court noted that Rep *750 resentative Howard, the co-sponsor of the Act now codified as 25 U.S.C. § 466 , in referring to the relationship between the government and the Indians as a “sacred trust,” stated that “[t]he failure of their governmental guardian to…”
Carcieri v. Kempthorne, 497 F.3d 15 (1st Cir. 2005). “9 For example, the regulation implementing 25 U.S.C. § 466 , which directs the Secretary to regulate the operation and management of Indian forestry units, states that it applies to “any Indian tribe .”
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.