25 U.S.C. § 487
Omitted
[omitted]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 6
cases, 1981–2007 · leading case: Osborn v. Haley, 549 U.S. 225 (2007).
Osborn v. Haley, 549 U.S. 225 (2007). “§ 1441a( l )(3)(C) ("The Corporation may appeal any order of remand entered by a United States district court"); § 1819(b)(2)(C) (same); 25 U.S.C. § 487 (d) ("[T]he United States shall have the right to appeal from any order of remand in the case").”
Powerex Corp. v. Reliant Energy Servs., Inc., 551 U.S. 224 (2007). “§ 1441a( l )(3)(c), § 1819(b)(2)(C); 25 U.S.C. § 487 (d). We are well aware that § 1447(d)'s immunization of erroneous remands has undesirable consequences in the FSIA context.”
Kircher v. Putnam Funds Trust, 547 U.S. 633 (2006). “§ 1441a( l )(3)(C); § 1819(b)(2)(C); 25 U. S. C. § 487 (d); cf. n. 7, supra. There is no such "clear statutory command" here, and that silence tells us we must look to 28 U.”
United States v. Barbara J. Anderson, 736 F.2d 1358 (9th Cir. 1984). “174 , codified as amended at 25 U.S.C. § 487 . This vacillation of land ownership provides a framework for the instant controversy.”
Nicholas Nasuti v. James Scannell, 792 F.2d 264 (1st Cir. 1986). “Similar exceptions are provided for review of a remand order in cases affecting land of the Spokane Tribe, 25 U.S.C. § 487 (d) (1982); the Swinomish Indian Tribal Community, 25 U.”
United States v. Ferry Cnty., 511 F. Supp. 546 (E.D. Wash. 1981). “§ 610 -e (1968) (hereinafter the “Swinomish Act”); and 25 U.S.C. § 487 (the Act of June 10, 1968,- 82 Stat.”
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.