25 U.S.C. § 472
Transferred
[transferred]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 44
cases, 1970–2014 · leading case: Carcieri v. Salazar, 555 U.S. 379 (2009).
Carcieri v. Salazar, 555 U.S. 379 (2009). “” On one hand, the Court of Appeals noted that another provision within the IRA, 25 U. S. C. §472 , uses the term “now or hereafter,” which supports petitioners’ argument that “now,” by itself, does not refer to future events.”
United States v. Cruz, 554 F.3d 840 (9th Cir. 2009). “[10] While Cruz did attend school on the reservation for a period of time, the school was open to non-Indians.”
Preston v. Schweiker, 555 F. Supp. 886 (D. Alaska 1983). “Claim Based on APA Violations re Implementing 25 U.S.C. § 472 Defendants allege plaintiff has failed to state a claim for which relief can be granted concerning the Indian Preference Act.”
Albuquerque Indian Rights v. Manuel Lujan, Jr., in His Trust Capacity as Sec'y of the Interior, 930 F.2d 49 (D.C. Cir. 1991). “SENTELLE, Circuit Judge: This appeal arises from a motion for summary judgment granted by the United States District Court for the District of Columbia upholding the Department of the Interior’s (“Interior” or “DOI”) refusal to apply the Indian hiring preference afforded by 25…”
KG Urban Enter., LLC v. Patrick, 693 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2012). “2474 (quoting 25 U.S.C. § 472 ) (internal quotation mark omitted).”
Oglala Sioux Tribe of Indians v. Andrus, 603 F.2d 707 (8th Cir. 1979). “We also agree that the Bureau’s action was procedurally defective in that it was not made in accordance with the Bureau’s own procedure requiring prior consultation with the Tribe. We do not reach the appellants’ alternative contentions.”
Johnson v. Cent. Valley Sch. Dist. No. 356, 645 P.2d 1088 (Wash. 1982). “His contention is that, as long as he was qualified for the position, he was entitled to the appointment regardless of the qualifications of others, because he was the only person of Indian heritage applying for the job.”
Loretta J. Brokeshoulder SCHWARZ, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Sec'y OF HEALTH & HUMAN Servs., Defendant-Appellee, 73 F.3d 895 (9th Cir. 1995). “§ 472 ; (3) violation of the IPA requirement of separate job qualification criteria for Indians; (4) race discrimination in violation of Title VII; and (5) violation of anti-nepotism laws, 5 U.S.C. § 3110 (b). Her theory was that agency personnel and management officials,…”
Merla J. Mullenberg v. United States of Am., Dep't of Health & Human Servs., & Dr. Otis Bowen, Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., 857 F.2d 770 (Fed. Cir. 1988). “” 25 U.S.C. § 472 . See also 5 C.F.R. §§ 213.”
Lawrence v. Dep't of Interior, 525 F.3d 916 (9th Cir. 2008). “The text of this act accords Indians a preference in “hiring,” 25 U.S.C. § 472 , and the BIA has interpreted “hiring” to mean “initial hiring, reinstatement, transfer, reassignment or promotion.”
Indian Educators Fed'n Local 4524 of the Am. Fed'n of Teachers v. Kempthorne, 541 F. Supp. 2d 257 (D.D.C. 2008). “At issue in this case is the scope of Section 12 of the Indian Reorganization Act of 1934, 25 U.S.C. § 472 (1976), and whether the Act mandates employment preferences for American Indians employed in any position in the Interi- or Department that directly and primarily relates…”
Peyote Way Church of God, Inc. v. Richard Thornburgh, Attorney Gen. of the United States, 922 F.2d 1210 (5th Cir. 1991). “Similarly, the statute at issue in Morton , 25 U.S.C. § 472 , accords its hiring preference to “Indians” without requiring tribal affiliation.”
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.