25 U.S.C. § 503
Transferred
[transferred]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 29
cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1976–2023 · leading case: Enter. Mgmt. Consultants, Inc. v. State Ex Rel. Oklahoma Tax Comm'n, 768 P.2d 359 (Okla. 1988).
Enter. Mgmt. Consultants, Inc. v. State Ex Rel. Oklahoma Tax Comm'n, 768 P.2d 359 (Okla. 1988). “§ 503 (1936) provides: "Any recognized tribe or band of Indians residing in Oklahoma shall have the right to organize for its common welfare and to adopt a constitution and bylaws, under such rules and regulations as the Secretary of the Interior may prescribe. The Secretary of…”
Dilliner v. Seneca-Cayuga Tribe, 2011 OK 61 (Okla. 2011). “The Seneca-Cayuga Tribe of Oklahoma (Tribe) is a federally recognized Indian tribe. The Tribe has a Constitution and By-Laws.”
Native Am. Distrib. v. Seneca-Cayuga Tobacco Co., 546 F.3d 1288 (10th Cir. 2008). “Section 3 of the Oklahoma Indian Welfare Act of 1936, 25 U.S.C. § 503 , grants the membership of the Seneea-Cay-uga Tribe the right to organize and act through two entities: a governmental entity organized under a constitution and a corporate entity organized under a corporate…”
Memphis Biofuels, LLC v. Chickasaw Nation Indus., Inc., 585 F.3d 917 (6th Cir. 2009). “As discussed above, CNI is chartered under the OIWA, 25 U.S.C. § 503 , et seq. The OIWA is an extension of the IRA, 25 U.”
Muscogee (Creek) Nation, a Federally Recognized Indian Tribe v. Donald Hodel, Sec'y, U.S. Dep't of Interior, 851 F.2d 1439 (D.C. Cir. 1988). “25 U.S.C. § 503 . The corresponding section of the IRA provides: Any Indian tribe .”
Sac & Fox Nation v. Norton, 585 F. Supp. 2d 1293 (W.D. Okla. 2006). “7 In response, the *1298 Plaintiff contends that the federal Oklahoma Indian Welfare Act, Title 25 U.S.C. § 503 , enables the Sac and Fox Nation to claim the same rights and privileges as other tribes under the Indian Reorganization Act.”
Thlopthlocco Tribal Town v. Stidham, 762 F.3d 1226 (10th Cir. 2014). “25 U.S.C. § 503 . Although 16 tal-wa were still active at that time, only the Thlopthloceo Tribal Town and two other Creek talwa, the Kailegee Tribal Town and the Alabama-Quassarte Tribal Town, sought and received federal charters in the years immediately after OIWA’s enactment.”
Harjo v. Kleppe, 420 F. Supp. 1110 (D.D.C. 1976). “The allegedly indispensable parties are the three Creek “tribal towns” which have chosen to organize under the provisions of the Oklahoma Indian Welfare Act of 1936, 25 U.S.C. § 503 , which provides in relevant part: “ .”
Bales v. Chickasaw Nation Indus., 606 F. Supp. 2d 1299 (D.N.M. 2009). “Defendant was federally chartered as a Chickasaw Nation tribal corporation under 25 U.S.C. § 503 , a provision of the Oklahoma Indian Welfare Act (OIWA) permitting Native American tribes or bands in the state of Oklahoma to request from the Secretary of the Interior a charter of…”
Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma v. United States, 21 Cl. Ct. 565 (Ct. Cl. 1990). “8 See 25 U.S.C. § 503 (1982). Plaintiff never adopted such a charter.”
R. Perry Wheeler v. United States Dep't of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, 811 F.2d 549 (10th Cir. 1987). “Plaintiffs argue that the right of the Cherokee Nation to self-government is diminished by their failure to reorganize under the Oklahoma Indian Welfare Act, 25 U.S.C. § 503 (1982). However, the Cherokee Nation still possesses an inherent right to self-government that is…”
Seminole Nation of Oklahoma v. Norton, 206 F.R.D. 1 (D.D.C. 2001). “The Nation opted not to organize under the Oklahoma Indian Welfare Act (“OIWA”), 25 U.S.C. § 503 , and, like other Oklahoma tribes, was excluded from coverage of the Indian Reorganization Act (“IRA”), 25 U.”
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.