25 U.S.C. § 640d
Omitted
[omitted]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 51
cases (19 in the last 5 years), 1978–2025 · leading case: Navajo Nation v. United States, 631 F.3d 1268 (Fed. Cir. 2011).
Navajo Nation v. United States, 631 F.3d 1268 (Fed. Cir. 2011). “See 25 U.S.C. § 640d et seq. (1974) (the “1974 Settlement Act”).”
Abbott Sekaquaptewa, Etc. v. Peter MacDonald Etc., Griffin B. Bell, Etc., 575 F.2d 239 (9th Cir. 1978). “) In another effort to resolve this dispute, Congress enacted another statute in 1974 (25 U.S.C. §§ 640d et seq.), providing for the appointment of a mediator to assist in negotiating a settlement and a partition of the rights and interests of the Hopi and Navajo Tribes in the…”
Nancy Walker v. Navajo-Hopi Indian Relocation Comm'n, 728 F.2d 1276 (9th Cir. 1984). “SKOPIL, Circuit Judge: INTRODUCTION The Navajo-Hopi Indian Relocation Commission (“Commission”) determined that Walker was not entitled to benefits under the 1974 Settlement Act, 25 U.S.C. § 640d et seq. (“Act”). Walker complained in district court that she was entitled to…”
Clinton v. Babbitt, 180 F.3d 1081 (9th Cir. 1999). “1712 (codified as amended at 25 U.S.C. §§ 640d et seq. (1994)) (“1974 Settlement Act”).”
The Hopi Tribe, Plaintiff-Appellee-Cross-Appellant v. The Navajo Tribe, Defendants-Appellants-Cross-Appellees v. United States of Am., 46 F.3d 908 (9th Cir. 1995). “60 (the homesite rental determination) for the fair market rental value of homesites occupied by Navajos between 1979 and 1984 in formerly shared lands after their partition and allocation to the Hopi Tribe.”
Begay v. United States, 16 Cl. Ct. 107 (Ct. Cl. 1987). “93-531, codified, as amended, at 25 U.S.C. § 640d et seq. (1982) (the Act or the Relocation Act).”
Benally v. Hodel, 940 F.2d 1194 (9th Cir. 1990). “I In their amended complaint, appellants allege that the Secretary of the Interior, other agents of the Department of the Interior, and the Navajo-Hopi Relocation Commission (“the Relocation Commission”) 1 have failed to comply with the mandates of the Navajo and Hopi Indian…”
Navajo Nation v. United States, 501 F.3d 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2007). “The Act of 1934 also authorized the Secretary of the Interior “to accept relinquishments and reconveyance to the United States of such privately owned lands,” which would “be held in trust for the Navajo Tribe of Indians.”
Masayesva v. Zah, 816 F. Supp. 1387 (D. Ariz. 1992). “The Settlement Act authorized the District Court to partition the JUA (after a mediated negotiation effort by the Tribes), and provided for the relocation of individual Indians who lived on lands partitioned to the other Tribe. After negotiation failed, the District Court…”
Sekaquaptewa v. MacDonald, 448 F. Supp. 1183 (D. Ariz. 1978). “25 U.S.C. §§ 640d to 640d-20. The statute granting federal jurisdiction over the Hopi-Navajo land dispute within the 1882 Reservation authorized the tribal chairman to represent both tribe, villages, clans, and individual Indians.”
Attakai v. United States, 746 F. Supp. 1395 (D. Ariz. 1990). “25 U.S.C. § 640d — 9(e)(1)(A). 2 . Act of July 22, 1958, Pub.”
Akee v. Off. of Navajo & Hopi Indian Relocation, 907 F. Supp. 315 (D. Ariz. 1995). “Plaintiff Marie Akee, an enrolled member of the Navajo Nation, brought this action for the purpose of obtaining judicial review of the administrative decision of the defendant Office of Navajo and Hopi Indian Relocation (ONHIR) that she is not entitled to relocation assistance…”
— 25 U.S.C. § 640d(a) — 1 case
Abbott Sekaquaptewa, Etc. v. Peter MacDonald Etc., Griffin B. Bell, Etc., 575 F.2d 239 (9th Cir. 1978). “) In another effort to resolve this dispute, Congress enacted another statute in 1974 (25 U.S.C. §§ 640d et seq.), providing for the appointment of a mediator to assist in negotiating a settlement and a partition of the rights and interests of the Hopi and Navajo Tribes in the…”
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.