25 U.S.C. § 564
Omitted
[omitted]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 40
cases, 1960–2020 · leading case: Klamath Tribe Claims Comm. v. United States, 97 Fed. Cl. 203 (Fed. Cl. 2011).
Klamath Tribe Claims Comm. v. United States, 97 Fed. Cl. 203 (Fed. Cl. 2011). “718 (codified, as amended, at 25 U.S.C. §§ 564 -564x), which ended federal supervision over the Tribes’ trust assets and tribal properties, and terminated the federal services furnished to the Tribes.”
Washington v. Confederated Tribes of the Colville Indian Reservation, 447 U.S. 134 (1980). “to help develop and utilize Indian resources, both physical and human, to a point where the Indians will fully exercise responsibility for the utilization and management of their own resources and where they will enjoy a standard of living from their own productive efforts…”
Affiliated Ute Citizens of Utah v. United States, 406 U.S. 128 (1972). “See, for example, the Menominee Indian Termination Act of June 17, 1954, 68 Stat.”
Rice v. Rehner, 463 U.S. 713 (1983). “718 , 25 U. S. C. § 564 ; 68 Stat. 769 , 25 U. S.”
Oregon Dep't of Fish & Wildlife v. Klamath Indian Tribe, 473 U.S. 753 (1985). “718 -723, as amended, 25 U. S. C. §§ 564 -564x. The Termination Act required members of the Tribe to elect either to withdraw from the Tribe and receive the monetary value of their interest in tribal property, or to remain in the Tribe and participate in a non-governmental…”
United States v. Damien Zepeda, 705 F.3d 1052 (9th Cir. 2013). “1974), the court considered the effect of the Klamath Termination Act, 25 U.S.C. § 564 et seq., on the defendant’s criminal conviction under § 1153, and found that federal criminal jurisdiction over the defendant was lacking because the Act 20 UNITED STATES V .”
Bryan v. Itasca Cnty., 426 U.S. 373 (1976). “718 , 25 U. S. C. § 564 (Klamath Tribe); 68 Stat.”
Menominee Tribe of Indians v. United States, 391 U.S. 404 (1968). “718 , 25 U. S. C. § 564 et seq., enacted by the same Congress that enacted the Menominee Termination Act, which explicitly preserves fishing rights.”
United States v. Adair, 723 F.2d 1394 (9th Cir. 1983). “718 (codified at 25 U.S.C. §§ 564 -564w (1976)). Under this Act, tribe members could give up their interest in tribal property for cash.”
Santa Rosa Band of Indians v. Kings Cnty., 532 F.2d 655 (9th Cir. 1976). “, and the Klamath Termination Act, 25 U.S.C. § 564 et seq. 10 . Compare P.L.”
Charles E. Kimball v. John D. Callahan, 493 F.2d 564 (9th Cir. 1974). “Pursuant to the Klamath Termination Act, 25 U.S.C. §§ 564 -564x, plaintiffs or their ancestors elected to withdraw from the tribe and have their interest in tribal property converted into money and paid to them.”
Wolfchild v. United States, 62 Fed. Cl. 521 (Fed. Cl. 2004). “”); 25 U.S.C. § 564 (“The purpose of this subchapter is to provide for the termination of Federal supervision over the trust and restricted property of the Klamath Tribe of Indians.”
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.