25 U.S.C. § 467
Transferred
[transferred]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 31
cases, 1965–2014 · leading case: Yankton Sioux Tribe v. Podhradsky, 529 F. Supp. 2d 1040 (D.S.D. 2007).
Yankton Sioux Tribe v. Podhradsky, 529 F. Supp. 2d 1040 (D.S.D. 2007). “§ 465 , “trust” lands are automatically Section 7, 25 U.S.C. § 467 , “reservation” lands. Specifically, Defendants interpret Section 7 to require a “proclamation” by the Secretary of the Interior that the lands taken into trust under Section 5 are “reservation” lands.”
Citizens Exposing Truth About Casinos v. Kempthorne, 492 F.3d 460 (D.C. Cir. 2007). “On appeal the Secretary maintains that this analysis rests upon the plain meaning of the phrase “initial reservation” to mean the first land taken into trust for a tribe under federal law and proclaimed a “reservation” under 25 U.”
United States v. State of Washington, 459 F. Supp. 1020 (W.D. Wash. 1978). “Land upon which the reservation is located was purchased by the United States in the 1930's under authority of said Indian Reorganization Act and was proclaimed as an Indian Reservation pursuant to section 7 of that act, 25 U.S.C. § 467 , by the Secretary of the Interior on June…”
Yankton Sioux Tribe v. Podhradsky, 606 F.3d 985 (8th Cir. 2010). “They argue that under 25 U.S.C. § 467 , such reacquired lands cannot become part of a reservation unless the Secretary of the Interi- or has made a formal proclamation to that effect.”
United States v. Roberts, 185 F.3d 1125 (10th Cir. 1999). “See 25 U.S.C. § 467 . 4 Further, we find in Venetie neither a declaration that tribal trust lands are not Indian Country for purposes of criminal jurisdiction, nor a repudiation of the Court’s prior discussions of “informal” reservations.”
Yankton Sioux Tribe v. Podhradsky, 606 F.3d 994 (8th Cir. 2010). “They rely on § 7 of the IRA, 25 U.S.C. § 467 , wrhich provides that the Secretary “is .”
Arizona Pub. Serv. Co. v. Env't Prot. Agency, 211 F.3d 1280 (D.C. Cir. 2000). “§ 465 (1994), and such land can only formally be designated a reservation via the process provided by 25 U.S.C. § 467 (1994). Petitioners claim that EPA’s interpretation contravenes the Act’s plain language and renders 25 U.”
Langley v. Ryder, 602 F. Supp. 335 (W.D. La. 1985). “986 , codified at 25 U.S.C. § 467 . Thus, the specific question presented here is whether land held in trust by the United States for a recognized Indian tribe but not proclaimed to be a reservation by the Secretary of the Interior constitutes “Indian country” for purposes of…”
State v. Romero, 2006 NMSC 039 (N.M. 2006). “”); see also New Indian reservations, 25 U.S.C. § 467 (1934) (authorizing the Secretaiy of the Interior to proclaim new Indian reservations and to add lands to existing reservations).”
Bertney Langley v. Alfred R. Ryder, Etc., 778 F.2d 1092 (5th Cir. 1985). “986 , codified at 25 U.S.C. § 467 . Because the court concluded that the lands were not a reservation, it found that the question in this case was whether lands held in trust by the United States for a recognized Indian tribe but not proclaimed to be a reservation by the…”
Wolfchild v. United States, 559 F.3d 1228 (Fed. Cir. 2009). “” 25 U.S.C. § 467 . In light of that statutory provision dedicating new reservation lands to the use of tribal members only, it would be anomalous to construe the 1980 Act, which made the 1886 lands part of the three communities’ reservations, to mean that those lands would be…”
United States v. Washington, 459 F. Supp. 1020 (W.D. Wash. 1978). “Land upon which the reservation is located was purchased by the United States in the 1930’s under authority of said Indian Reorganization Act and was proclaimed as an Indian Reservation pursuant to section 7 of that act, 25 U.S.C. § 467 , by the Secretary of the Interior on June…”
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.