25 U.S.C. § 566
Omitted
[omitted]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 6
cases, 2000–2020 · leading case: Klamath Tribe Claims Committee v. United States
Klamath Tribe Claims Committee v. United States (2011)
“While the Restoration Act restored the Tribes’ federal services, as well as the government-to-government relationship between the Tribe and the United States, it did not alter existing property rights. See 25 U.”
United States v. Damien Zepeda (2013)
“See Dissent at 36 (citing 25 U.S.C. §§ 566 , 712a, 1300j, 1300b- 11).”
Klamath Tribe Claims Committee v. United States (2012)
“While the Restoration Act restored the Tribes’ federal services, as well as the government-to-government relationship between the Tribe and the United States, it did not alter existing property rights. See 25 U.”
Confederated Tribes of Coos, Lower Umpqua & Siuslaw Indians v. Babbitt (2000)
“99-398, August 27, 1986, 25 U.S.C. §§ 566 -566h (restoring federal recognition to the Klamath Tribe and restoring rights and privileges to the tribe and its members); Pub.”
Hawkins v. Bernhardt (2020)
“849 (1986) (codified at 25 U.S.C. § 566 ). The Restoration Act “restored the Tribes’ federal services, as well as the government-to-government relationship between the Tribe and the United States,” but “did not alter existing property rights,” meaning previously sold reservation…”
Foreman v. Department of Revenue (2005)
“Pub L 99-398 § 2,100 Stat 849 (1986) (codified as amended at 25 USC § 566 (Supp IV 1982)). The Restoration Act provided that “ [n] otwithstanding any other provision of law, the tribe and its members shall be eligible, on and after August 27, 1986, for all Federal services and…”
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.