U.S. Code » Title 25 » Chapter CHAPTER 14— MISCELLANEOUS › Subchapter SUBCHAPTER XLIII–A— CATAWBA INDIAN TRIBE OF SOUTH CAROLINA; RESTORATION OF FEDERAL TRUST RELATIONSHIP

25 U.S.C. § 941b

Omitted

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 25 CasesGoogle Scholar

[omitted]

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 4 cases, 1998–2014 · leading case: Catawba Indian Tribe v. State
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Catawba Indian Tribe v. State (2007) sc · cites it 2× “25 U.S.C.A. § 941b(a)(2) (2001). As part of the settlement, Respondent waived its right to be governed by the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act.”
Catawba Indian Nation v. State (2014) sc “2d at 753 (citing 25 U.S.C.A. § 941b(a)(2) (2001)). Under the terms of the settlement, the Catawba waived its right to be governed by the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (“IGRA”).”
Narragansett Indian Tribe v. National Indian Gaming Commission (1998) cadc “See 25 U.S.C. § 941b(e), m(c); id. § 1725(h); id.”
Wade v. Blue (2004) ca4 “” 25 U.S.C. § 941b(a)(2). *409 As part of the settlement, the federal and state governments were to pay a total of $50 million in trust to the Tribe, in return for extinguishment of past and future land claims.”
— 25 U.S.C. § 941b(a)(2) — 3 cases
Catawba Indian Tribe v. State (2007) sc “25 U.S.C.A. § 941b(a)(2) (2001). As part of the settlement, Respondent waived its right to be governed by the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act.”
Catawba Indian Nation v. State (2014) sc “2d at 753 (citing 25 U.S.C.A. § 941b(a)(2) (2001)). Under the terms of the settlement, the Catawba waived its right to be governed by the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (“IGRA”).”
Wade v. Blue (2004) ca4 “” 25 U.S.C. § 941b(a)(2). *409 As part of the settlement, the federal and state governments were to pay a total of $50 million in trust to the Tribe, in return for extinguishment of past and future land claims.”
— 25 U.S.C. § 941b(e) — 1 case
Narragansett Indian Tribe v. National Indian Gaming Commission (1998) cadc “See 25 U.S.C. § 941b(e), m(c); id. § 1725(h); id.”
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.