25 U.S.C. § 651
Omitted
[omitted]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 9
cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1962–2024 · leading case: Muwekma Ohlone Tribe v. Kenneth Salazar, 708 F.3d 209 (D.C. Cir. 2013).
Muwekma Ohlone Tribe v. Kenneth Salazar, 708 F.3d 209 (D.C. Cir. 2013). “” 25 U.S.C. § 651 . Muwekma claims that, as a matter of practice, tribal affiliation was required because applicants had to answer the following question: ‘What is your degree of Indian blood and to what Tribe or Band of Indians of the State of California do you belong?” See JA…”
Glidden Co. v. Zdanok, 370 U.S. 530 (1962). “It remains to consider whether that circumstance suffices to render nonjudicial the decision of claims against the United States in the Court of Claims. First. Throughout its history the Court of Claims has frequently been given jurisdiction by special act to award recovery for…”
Donahue v. Butz, 363 F. Supp. 1316 (N.D. Cal. 1973). “602 , 25 U.S.C. § 651 et seq., providing that claims of California Indians may be submitted to the Court of Claims by the Attorney General of California; also the Act of August 13, 1946 (25 U.”
David Robinson v. Sally Jewell, 790 F.3d 910 (9th Cir. 2015). “The Indians of California Act, 25 U.S.C. § 651 . The Court of Claims determined that the Act granted a right of action for an equitable claim, not a legal one, "allowing all the Indians of California to recover the amount specified in these unratified treaties, both in the value…”
Robinson v. Salazar, 838 F. Supp. 2d 1006 (E.D. Cal. 2012). “1714 , brought by the California Attorney General under the “Indians of California Act” of May 18, 1928, 25 U.S.C. § 651 . The Indians of California Act authorized “the [Attorney [G]eneral of the State of California to bring suit in the Court of Claims on behalf of the Indians…”
Robinson v. Salazar, 885 F. Supp. 2d 1002 (E.D. Cal. 2012). “The Indians of California Act authorized “the [A]ttorney [G]eneral of the State of California to bring suit in the Court of Claims on behalf of the Indians of California,” who were defined as “all Indians who were residing in the State of California on June 1, 1852, and their…”
Karuk Tribe of California v. United States, 41 Fed. Cl. 468 (Fed. Cl. 1998). “602 , 25 U.S.C. § 651 et seq. (“1928 Act”). Contrary to plaintiffs’ claims, this act was merely jurisdictional in nature, authorizing initiation of a suit to determine an “equitable amount due [all the Indians of California] from the United States.”
Karuk Tribe v. Ammon, 209 F.3d 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2000). “Plaintiffs also assert that the settlement of their claims under the California Indians’ Jurisdictional Act of 1928, 25 U.S.C. § 651 et. seq., recognizes their permanent and compensable rights.”
Emilio Reyes v. Usdoi (9th Cir. 2024). “” 25 U.S.C. § 651 (2012) (omitted from 2018 Code “as being of special and not general application”).”
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.