25 U.S.C. § 564m
Omitted
[omitted]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 13
cases, 1968–2020 · leading case: Oregon Dep't of Fish & Wildlife v. Klamath Indian Tribe, 473 U.S. 753 (1985).
Oregon Dep't of Fish & Wildlife v. Klamath Indian Tribe, 473 U.S. 753 (1985). “We agree with the Court of Appeals that Indians may enjoy special hunting and fishing rights that are independent of any *766 ownership of land, [17] and that, as demonstrated in 25 U. S. C. § 564m(b), the 1954 Termination Act for the Klamath Tribe, such rights may survive the…”
Menominee Tribe of Indians v. United States, 391 U.S. 404 (1968). “25 U. S. C. § 564m (b). [8] If, as the Court seems to say, the exceptions enumerated in Public Law 280 continue in effect after termination of Indian country, it follows that Wisconsin cannot now tax, or otherwise regulate the use of, property owned by the Menominees.”
Klamath Tribe Claims Comm. v. United States, 97 Fed. Cl. 203 (Fed. Cl. 2011). “1954 Act § 14 (codified at 25 U.S.C. § 564m). Following the passage of this legislation, approximately seventy-eight percent of the Tribes’ members (1,660 of 2,133) chose to withdraw, and defendant used its authority under Section 10 of the Act to sell off much of the Tribes’…”
United States v. Adair, 723 F.2d 1394 (9th Cir. 1983). “See 25 U.S.C. § 564m (1976). The Tribe, by cross-appeal, also challenges the district court’s declaration of water rights to non-Indian successors-in-interest to lands previously allotted to members of the Tribe.”
United States v. Oranna Bumgarner Felter, 752 F.2d 1505 (10th Cir. 1985). “" 25 U.S.C. § 564m(b). The 1954 Act does not contain a similar provision.”
United States v. Felter, 546 F. Supp. 1002 (D. Utah 1982). “The concept of “recognized” Indian title was recently explained as follows: Recognized title is title to Indian lands that has been by federal treaty or statute.”
Charles E. Kimball v. John D. Callahan, 493 F.2d 564 (9th Cir. 1974). “” 25 U.S.C. § 564m (b). This court in Klamath and Modoc Tribes v.”
United States v. Adair, 478 F. Supp. 336 (D. Or. 1979). “Klamath Termination Act, § 14, 25 U.S.C. § 564m. The Indians are still entitled to as much water on the Reservation lands as they need to protect their hunting and fishing rights.”
Klamath Claims Comm. v. United States, 541 F. App'x 974 (Fed. Cir. 2013). “§ 564r (“[The] termination shall not affect the power of the tribe to take any action under its constitution and bylaws that is consistent with [the Termination Act]”); 25 U.S.C. § 564m (stating that the Termination Act would not affect “any water rights” or “fishing rights or…”
Klamath Tribe Claims Comm. v. United States, 106 Fed. Cl. 87 (Fed. Cl. 2012). “1954 Act § 14 (codified at 25 U.S.C. § 564m). Following the passage of this legislation, approximately seventy-eight percent of the Tribes’ members (1,660 of 2,133) chose to withdraw, and defendant used its authority under Section 10 of the Act to sell off much of the Tribes’…”
Baley v. United States, 134 Fed. Cl. 619 (Fed. Cl. 2017). “2d at 1411 -12 (quoting 25 U.S.C. § 564m(a) (1976)). . In 1988, Congress enacted the Hoopa-Yurok Settlement Act, 25 U.”
Klamath Irrigation v. United States, 134 Fed. Cl. 619 (Fed. Cl. 2017). “2d at 1411 -12 (quoting 25 U.S.C. § 564m(a) (1976)). 12 The rights of the Yurok and Hoopa Valley Tribes are derived from three presidential Executive Orders issued in 1856, 1876, and 1891, which established, extended, and combined the Klamath and Hoopa Valley Reservations in…”
— 25 U.S.C. § 564m(a) — 3 cases
United States v. Adair, 723 F.2d 1394 (9th Cir. 1983). “See 25 U.S.C. § 564m (1976). The Tribe, by cross-appeal, also challenges the district court’s declaration of water rights to non-Indian successors-in-interest to lands previously allotted to members of the Tribe.”
Baley v. United States, 134 Fed. Cl. 619 (Fed. Cl. 2017). “2d at 1411 -12 (quoting 25 U.S.C. § 564m(a) (1976)). . In 1988, Congress enacted the Hoopa-Yurok Settlement Act, 25 U.”
Klamath Irrigation v. United States, 134 Fed. Cl. 619 (Fed. Cl. 2017). “2d at 1411 -12 (quoting 25 U.S.C. § 564m(a) (1976)). 12 The rights of the Yurok and Hoopa Valley Tribes are derived from three presidential Executive Orders issued in 1856, 1876, and 1891, which established, extended, and combined the Klamath and Hoopa Valley Reservations in…”
— 25 U.S.C. § 564m(b) — 3 cases
Oregon Dep't of Fish & Wildlife v. Klamath Indian Tribe, 473 U.S. 753 (1985). “We agree with the Court of Appeals that Indians may enjoy special hunting and fishing rights that are independent of any *766 ownership of land, [17] and that, as demonstrated in 25 U. S. C. § 564m(b), the 1954 Termination Act for the Klamath Tribe, such rights may survive the…”
United States v. Oranna Bumgarner Felter, 752 F.2d 1505 (10th Cir. 1985). “" 25 U.S.C. § 564m(b). The 1954 Act does not contain a similar provision.”
United States v. Felter, 546 F. Supp. 1002 (D. Utah 1982). “The concept of “recognized” Indian title was recently explained as follows: Recognized title is title to Indian lands that has been by federal treaty or statute.”
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.