25 U.S.C. § 473
Transferred
[transferred]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 11
cases, 1972–2016 · leading case: Upstate Citizens for Equality, Inc. v. United States
Upstate Citizens for Equality, Inc. v. United States (2016)
“25 U.S.C. § 473 . It also excludes certain named Indian tribes (not including the Oneidas) from some of its provisions.”
Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma v. United States (1990)
“§ 466 ) also is not applicable to plaintiff, 25 U.S.C. §§ 473 , 503. Oklahoma Indian tribes, including plaintiff, must adopt a charter to secure the rights and privileges of the 1934 Act, including § 466.”
Blackfeet Tribe of Indians v. State of Montana, Director of the Montana Department of Revenue, Glacier County, Montana, (1984)
“15 Congress recognized that the various statutory provisions permitting leasing of tribal land were scattered, inconsistent, and in conflict with the provisions of the IRA giving the tribes authority to prevent leasing of tribal lands. In 1935 Congress considered, but did not…”
Akiachak Native Community v. United States Department of Interior (2013)
“986 (codified at 25 U.S.C. § 473 ), but it was extended to the Territory of Alaska two years later, Act of May 1, 1936, Pub.”
Sac and Fox Nation v. Norton (2006)
“On its face, Title 25 U.S.C. § 473 appears to exclude certain Oklahoma Indian tribes, including the Sac and Fox Nation, from coverage under the Indian Reorganization Act.”
Kahawaiolaa v. Norton (2004)
“See 25 U.S.C. § 473 (“The provisions of this Act shall not apply to any of the Territories, colonies, or insular possessions of the United States, except that sections 9, 10, 11, 12, and 16 ( 25 U.”
Price v. Hawaii (1985)
“” 25 U.S.C. § 473 . In 1934, when § 473 was enacted, Hawaii was such a territory.”
Seneca Constitutional Rights Organization v. George (1972)
“See 25 U.S.C. § 473 . Upon the basis of the foregoing, the court determines that the claim that the Seneca Nation does not possess the power of eminent domain does not state a claim upon which relief can be granted.”
Logan v. Andrus (1978)
“See 25 U.S.C. §§ 473 and 508. 40 . For a case in which a similar determination was made by a Court presented with an analogous factual situation, see Harjo v.”
Muscogee (Creek) Nation v. Hodel (1987)
“See 25 U.S.C. § 473 . Senator Thomas argued that the philosophy behind the Indian Reorganization Act did not apply in Oklahoma where the Indians were relatively assimilated into the culture of the state.”
Upstate Citizens for Equality, Inc. v. United States (2016)
“25 U.S.C. § 473 . It also excludes certain named Indian tribes (not including the Oneidas) from some of its provisions.”
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.