25 U.S.C. § 941
Omitted
[omitted]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 6
cases, 1995–2014 · leading case: Catawba Indian Tribe v. State
Catawba Indian Tribe v. State (2007)
“4 25 U.S.C.A. § 941 ? (a); Settlement Agreement § 16.”
Catawba Indian Nation v. State (2014)
“25 U.S.C.A. §§ 941 to 941n (2013) (federal codification of settlement).”
Confederated Tribes of Coos, Lower Umpqua & Siuslaw Indians v. Babbitt (2000)
“103-116, October 27, 1993, 25 U.S.C. §§ 941 -941n (restoring federal recognition to the *163 Catawba Indian Tribe of South Carolina and restoring rights and privileges to the tribe and its members); Pub.”
Wade v. Blue (2004)
“See generally 25 U.S.C. § 941 (a)(4) (2001) (describing the historical background of the Tribe and its land claims against the United States and South Carolina).”
Arizona v. Tohono O'Odham Nation (2013)
“” 25 U.S.C. § 941 (a)(4)(B), (D), (E). From this and other examples, Plaintiffs contend that a “settlement of a land claim” refers specifically to an action by Congress to quiet title to land formerly *756 subject to title or possession by an Indian tribe.”
Passamaquoddy Tribe v. State of Maine (1995)
“Finally, in examining a provision in the Catawba Tribe Settlement *637 Act of 1993, 25 U.S.C. § 941 (l)(a), that explicitly exempts the Catawba Tribe from the Gaming Act, the Fifth Circuit found that there was a “clear intention on Congress’ part that [the Gaming Act] is not to…”
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.