25 U.S.C. § 899
Repealed. Pub. L. 93–197, § 3(b), Dec. 22, 1973, 87 Stat. 770
[repealed]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 13
cases, 1967–2007 · leading case: Menominee Tribe of Indians v. United States
Menominee Tribe of Indians v. United States (1968)
“" The provision of the Termination Act ( 25 U. S. C. § 899 ) that "all statutes of the United States which affect Indians because of their status as Indians shall no longer be applicable to the members of the tribe" plainly refers to the termination of federal supervision.”
United States v. Felter (1982)
“The Supreme Court said of the statutory language in Menominee, The provision of the Termination Act ( 25 U.S.C. § 899 ) that “all statutes of the United States which affect Indians because of their status as Indians shall no longer be applicable to the members of the tribe”…”
Charles E. Kimball v. John D. Callahan (1974)
“” 25 U.S.C. § 899 . The Court acknowledged that this language supports a forceful argument that the Termination Act submitted the hunting and fishing rights of the Indians to state regulation and control.”
Aroostook Band of Micmacs v. Ryan (2007)
“1705 (quoting 25 U.S.C. § 899 (repealed 1973)) (internal quotation marks omitted).”
Menominee Tribe of Indians v. United States (1979)
“” 25 U.S.C. § 899 (1970). The Act goes on to say that "the laws of the several States shall apply to the tribe and its members in the same manner as they apply to other citizens or persons within their jurisdiction.”
John Mark Latender v. Thomas Israel, Warden (1978)
“Former 25 U.S.C. § 899 . Transfer of the Menominee property to the tribal corporation was not effected until April 30, 1961, and therefore the provision just quoted, making Menominees subject to state law, had not become effective by the time of the passage of the next statute…”
Menominee Tribe of Indians v. United States (1967)
“The majority of our court now decides the reverse; that is, that the Termination Act “did not abrogate the exclusive hunting and fishing rights of the Menominees on their own reservation, but actually preserved and protected them.”
Webster v. Wisconsin Department of Revenue (1981)
“§899 ) that “all statutes of the United States which affect Indians because of their status as Indians shall no longer be applicable to the members of the tribe” plainly refers to the termination of federal supervision. The use of the word “statutes” is potent evidence that no…”
Dodge v. First Wisconsin Trust Company (1975)
“§ 81 by virtue of 25 U.S.C. § 899 which states in part: “ [Individual members of the tribe shall not be entitled to any of the services performed by the United States for Indians because of their status as Indians, all statutes of the United States which affect Indians because…”
Menominee Indian Tribe of Wisconsin v. Thompson (1996)
“nation Act that “the laws of the [state] shall apply to the tribe and its members in the same manner as they apply to other citizens or persons within their jurisdiction,” 25 U.S.C. § 899 , as giving Wisconsin the authority to regulate the Menominee’s hunting and fishing within…”
Catawba Indian Tribe v. South Carolina (1983)
“” The provision of the Termination Act ( 25 U.S.C. § 899 ) that “all statutes of the United States which affect Indians because of their status as Indians shall no longer be applicable to the members of the tribe” plainly refers to the termination of federal supervision.”
In Re Nacotee for a Writ of Habeas Corpus (1975)
“be considered in pari materia with the Termination Act. The two Acts read together mean to us that, although federal supervision of the tribe was to cease and all tribal property was to be transferred to new hands, the hunting and fishing rights granted or preserved by the Wolf…”
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.