25 U.S.C. § 677
Omitted
[omitted]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 45
cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1969–2026 · 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). “597 , 25 U. S. C. §§ 677 -677aa; the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 48 Stat.”
Ute Distrib. Corp. v. Sec'y of the Interior of the United States, 584 F.3d 1275 (10th Cir. 2009). “Plaintiff Ute Distribution Corporation (UDC) appeals from a decision of the district court denying UDC’s claim for a declaration that the Secretary’s implementation of the 1954 Ute Partition and Termination Act, 25 U.S.C. §§ 677 et seq., did not provide for an equitable and…”
United States v. Felter, 546 F. Supp. 1002 (D. Utah 1982). “Rolls were to be prepared, listing the membership of each group. Following publication of the final rolls in the Federal Register, the Ute Indian Tribe was to consist only of those enrolled as “full-blood” members.”
United States v. Oranna Bumgarner Felter, 752 F.2d 1505 (10th Cir. 1985). “868 , codified at 25 U.S.C. §§ 677 -677aa (“1954 Act”), divided the Ute Tribe into two groups: mixed-blood members and full-blood members.”
Ute Distrib. Corp., a Utah Corp. v. Ute Indian Tribe, 149 F.3d 1260 (10th Cir. 1998). “BACKGROUND The Ute Partition and Termination Act of 1954, 25 U.S.C. §§ 677 -677aa, was one of a series of Indian termination statutes enacted during a period in which the federal government pursued a policy of terminating its supervisory responsibilities for Indian tribes.”
Felter, Oranna v. Kempthorne, Dirk, 473 F.3d 1255 (D.C. Cir. 2007). “Nonetheless, in response to the tribe’s vote, Congress passed the Ute Partition and Termination Act (UPA), 25 U.S.C. § 677 et seq., which provided for the “partition and distribution of the assets of the Ute Indian Tribe .”
Santa Rosa Band of Indians v. Kings Cnty., 532 F.2d 655 (9th Cir. 1976). “, 25 U.S.C. § 677 (1970) (Ute); 25 U.S.C. §§ 691-708 (1970) (western Oregon tribes); 25 U.”
Hackford v. Babbitt, 14 F.3d 1457 (10th Cir. 1994). “Hackford appeals from the district court’s dismissal of his suit based upon his lack of standing under the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution and under the Ute Partition and Termination Act (Partition Act), 25 U.S.C. §§ 677 -677aa. Summary of the Case Hackford…”
Felter v. Norton, 412 F. Supp. 2d 118 (D.D.C. 2006). “Asserting they are “mixed-blood” members of the Ute Band of Indians, plaintiffs filed this suit to address injuries suffered as a result of the defendants’ alleged wrongful termination of plaintiffs’ status as federally recognized Indians under the Ute Partition & Termination…”
Wolfchild v. United States, 62 Fed. Cl. 521 (Fed. Cl. 2004). “, 25 U.S.C. § 677 (“The purpose of this subchapter is to provide for .”
Felter v. Salazar, 679 F. Supp. 2d 1 (D.D.C. 2010). “, the plaintiffs filed this action in 2002 against the Secretary 1 of the Department of the Interior (“DOI”), the Assistant Secretary for Indian Affairs of the DOI, the United States of America, and two employees of the Bureau of Indian Affairs for injuries suffered as a result…”
Ute Distrib. Corp. v. Sec'y of the Interior of the United States, 934 F. Supp. 1302 (D. Utah 1996). “868 (the “Ute Partition Act” or “UPA”) (codified as amended at 25 U.S.C. §§ 677 -677aa). Unlike legislation terminating other tribes or bands, see, e.”
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.