25 U.S.C. § 676a
Omitted
[omitted]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 6
cases, 1972–1988 · leading case: Affiliated Ute Citizens of Utah v. United States, 406 U.S. 128 (1972).
Affiliated Ute Citizens of Utah v. United States, 406 U.S. 128 (1972). “171 , 25 U. S. C. § 676a. Clearly, it is UDC and not AUC that is entitled to manage the oil, gas, and mineral rights with the committee of the full-bloods.”
Ellen Moose v. United States of Am., 674 F.2d 1277 (9th Cir. 1982). “As explained in note 2 supra, the 1965 act simply appropriated one lump sum to satisfy a number of judgments listed in two congressional documents.”
Cheyenne-Arapaho Tribes of Indians of Oklahoma v. United States, 206 Ct. Cl. 340 (Ct. Cl. 1975). “The Southern Ute Tribe Is a constitutent of the group and eligible to share In awards to the Confederated Bands, see 25 U.S.C. § 676a (1970). Earlier In this litigation, defendant opposed the representation of the Confederated Bands by the Southern Utes.”
Maldonado v. Hodel, 683 F. Supp. 1322 (D. Utah 1988). “597 , 598; and by the inclusion of UDC by name as an entity to receive the trust fund resulting from the judgment against the United States in favor of the Confederated Bands of Ute Indians, under the Act of August 1, 1967, 81 Stat.”
Whiskers v. United States, 600 F.2d 1332 (10th Cir. 1979). “25 U.S.C. § 676a (1976). Moreover, Congress expressly referred to the Southern Utes’ judgment award as constituting a trust fund.”
Ute Indian Tribe of Uintah & Ouray Reservation v. Hodel, 673 F. Supp. 619 (D.D.C. 1987). “25 U.S.C. § 676a (1982). 3 Congress stated that the judgment funds shall be available for advance to [the Tribe], or for expenditure, for such purposes, including per capita payments, as may be designated by the Tribal Business Committee for the full-blood members, and by 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.