42 U.S.C. § 2991
Short title
This subchapter may be cited as the “Native American Programs Act of 1974”.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 9
cases, 1968–2004 · leading case: Frank B. James v. United States Dep't of Health & Human Servs., 824 F.2d 1132 (D.C. Cir. 1987).
Frank B. James v. United States Dep't of Health & Human Servs., 824 F.2d 1132 (D.C. Cir. 1987). “On October 30, 1983, the governing body of the Tribal Council adopted a resolution authorizing officers of the corporation to apply for a grant from the Administration for Native Americans, a program operated by the Department of Health and Human Services under the Native…”
In Re Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether (\MTBE\") Prods. Liab. Litig.", 342 F. Supp. 2d 147 (S.D.N.Y. 2004). “1968) (upholding removal of a criminal trespass action against VISTA volunteers who entered property to render medical assistance, on the grounds that the VISTA workers were persons acting under an officer of the United States and performed work contemplated by a federal…”
Rice v. Cayetano, 963 F. Supp. 1547 (D. Haw. 1997). “Defendant notes the inclusion of Native Hawaiians in the Native American Programs Act of 1974 ( 42 U.S.C. § 2991 et seq.); the American Indian Religious Freedom Act of 1978 ( 42 U.”
Doe Ex Rel. Doe v. Kamehameha Schs./Bernice Pauahi Bishop Est., 295 F. Supp. 2d 1141 (D. Haw. 2003). “(13) The political relationship between the United States and the Native Hawaiian people has been recognized and reaffirmed by the United States, as evidenced by the inclusion of Native Hawaiians in— (A) the Native American Programs Act of 1974 ( 42 U.S.C. §§ 2991 et seq.); (B)…”
Kahawaiolaa v. Norton, 386 F.3d 1271 (9th Cir. 2004). “§ 3001 , and the Native American Programs Act of 1974, 42 U.S.C. § 2991 ), Congress, because of the unique history of Hawaii, has excluded them from some statutes while enacting others that benefit native Hawaiians only.”
Rice v. Cayetano, 941 F. Supp. 1529 (D. Haw. 1996). “Congress has extended to Native Hawaiians the same rights and privileges accorded to Native Indians in a myriad of federal legislation including the Native American Programs Act of 1974 ( 42 U.S.C. § 2991 et seq.), the American Indian Religious Freedom Act of 1978 ( 42 U.”
Gurda Farms, Inc. v. Monroe Cnty. Legal Assistance Corp., 358 F. Supp. 841 (S.D.N.Y. 1973). “The court found that the VISTA workers performed work contemplated by a federal statute ( 42 U.S.C. § 2991 ) and were responsible to the Director of O.”
Hoohuli v. Ariyoshi, 631 F. Supp. 1153 (D. Haw. 1986). “The Legislature appropriated $1,087,467 to OHA for fiscal years 1983 to 1985 and $1,129,-863 for fiscal years 1985 to 1987. The trust may also be funded by additional sources such as gifts or congressional appropriations.”
State of Oregon v. Cameron, 290 F. Supp. 36 (D. Or. 1968). “42 U.S.C. § 2991 et seq., as amended by Pub.”
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.