25 U.S.C. § 564q
Omitted
[omitted]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 12
cases, 1967–2012 · leading case: Bryan v. Itasca Cnty., 426 U.S. 373 (1976).
Bryan v. Itasca Cnty., 426 U.S. 373 (1976). “” 25 U. S. C. §§ 564q, 757, 899; cf. 25 U. S.”
United States v. Violet Bruce, 394 F.3d 1215 (9th Cir. 2005). “See 25 U.S.C. § 564q (2004). We agreed that she was no longer an Indian, but held that the error in the indictment was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.”
Klamath Tribe Claims Comm. v. United States, 97 Fed. Cl. 203 (Fed. Cl. 2011). “1954 Act § 18 (codified at 25 U.S.C. § 564q). Finally, the 1954 Act expressly preserved the Tribes’ water and fishing rights as granted under the 1864 Treaty.”
Santa Rosa Band of Indians v. Kings Cnty., 532 F.2d 655 (9th Cir. 1976). “280, conferring pre-termination jurisdiction, with 25 U.S.C. § 564q, the provision of the Klamath Termination Act conferring post-termination jurisdiction on the state.”
United States v. Terry Lee Hester, 719 F.2d 1041 (9th Cir. 1983). “On appeal, she contended that the district court lacked jurisdiction under section 1153 because she was a terminated Klamath Indian, see 25 U.S.C. § 564q, and hence no longer an Indian.”
St. Cloud v. United States, 702 F. Supp. 1456 (D.S.D. 1988). “Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. § 564q, Klamath Indians are subjected to state laws and are to be dealt with by the law no differently than any other citizen of a state.”
United States v. Theodore Floyd Burland, 441 F.2d 1199 (9th Cir. 1971). “25 U.S.C. §§ 564q, 677v, 703, 726, 757, 803, 823, 848, 899, 980.”
United States v. Betty Jean Heath, 509 F.2d 16 (9th Cir. 1974). “Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. § 564q, Klamath Indians are subjected to state laws and are to be dealt with by the law no differently than any other citizen of a state.”
United States v. Adair, 723 F.2d 1394 (9th Cir. 1983). “of Interior, terminating the federal trust relationship with the Klamath Tribe pursuant to 25 U.S.C. § 564q (1976)). Thus according to the second part of section 564m, Oregon law “with respect to abandonment of water rights by nonuse” became applicable to the Tribe and its…”
Klamath Tribe Claims Comm. v. United States, 106 Fed. Cl. 87 (Fed. Cl. 2012). “1954 Act § 18 (codified at 25 U.S.C. § 564q). Finally, the 1954 Act expressly preserved the Tribes’ water and fishing rights as granted under the 1864 Treaty.”
Menominee Tribe of Indians v. United States, 179 Ct. Cl. 496 (Ct. Cl. 1967). “722 , 25 U.S.C. § 564q (1964). In the Klamath cases certain Indians were charged with illegally hunting and trapping wild game on their reservation contrary to the game laws of Oregon.”
United States v. Bruce (9th Cir. 2005). “See 25 U.S.C. § 564q (2004). We agreed that she was no longer an Indian, but held that the error in the indictment was harmless beyond a reason- able doubt.”
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.