25 U.S.C. § 668
Omitted
[omitted]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 5
cases, 1996–2002 · leading case: Lyon v. Amoco Prod. Co., 923 P.2d 350 (Colo. Ct. App. 1996).
Lyon v. Amoco Prod. Co., 923 P.2d 350 (Colo. Ct. App. 1996). “” 25 U.S.C. § 668 . Recognizing that certain land within the reservation is owned in fee simple by non-Indians, the statute specifically addresses and limits the Tribe’s jurisdiction over such non-Indians on their fee lands.”
State v. Moses, 37 P.3d 1216 (Wash. 2002). “201 (codified as amended at 25 U.S.C. § 668 (1984)); People v. Luna, 683 P.”
State v. Moses, 37 P.3d 1216 (Wash. 2002). “201 (codified as amended at 25 U.S.C. § 668 (1984)); People v. Luna, 683 P.”
United States v. Steve A. Burch, 169 F.3d 666 (10th Cir. 1999). “201 (1984), set out in the Historical and Statutory Notes following 25 U.S.C. § 668 . The district court denied defendant’s motion because the crime occurred within the boundaries of the Southern Ute Indian Reservation and thus was within the exclusive jurisdiction of the United…”
United States v. Burch (10th Cir. 1999). “201 (1984), set out in the Historical and Statutory Notes following 25 U.S.C. § 668 . The district court denied defendant’s motion because the crime occurred within the boundaries of the Southern Ute Indian Reservation and thus was within the exclusive jurisdiction of the United…”
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.