43 U.S.C. § 1632

Statute of limitations on decisions of Secretary and reconveyance of land by Village Corporation

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 43 CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) Except for administrative determinations of navigability for purposes of determining ownership of submerged lands under the Submerged Lands Act [43 U.S.C. 1301 et seq., 1311 et seq.], a decision of the Secretary under this chapter or the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act [43 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.] shall not be subject to judicial review unless such action is initiated before a court of competent jurisdiction within two years after the day the Secretary’s decision becomes final or December 2, 1980, whichever is later: Provided, That the party seeking such review shall first exhaust any administrative appeal rights.(b) Decisions made by a Village Corporation to reconvey land under section 14(c) of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act [43 U.S.C. 1613(c)] shall not be subject to judicial review unless such action is initiated before a court of competent jurisdiction within one year after the date of the filing of the map of boundaries as provided for in regulations promulgated by the Secretary.(Pub. L. 96–487, title IX, § 902, Dec. 2, 1980, 94 Stat. 2433.)Editorial NotesReferences in Text

The Submerged Lands Act, referred to in subsec. (a), is Act May 22, 1953, ch. 65, 67 Stat. 29, which is classified generally to subchapters I and II (§§ 1301 et seq., 1311 et seq.) of chapter 29 of this title. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Short Title note set out under section 1301 of this title and Tables.

This chapter, referred to in subsec. (a), was in the original “this title”, meaning title IX of Pub. L. 96–487, Dec. 2, 1980, 94 Stat. 2430, which enacted this chapter, amended sections 1614 and 1620 of this title, and amended provisions set out as notes under section 1611 of this title and preceding section 21 of Title 48, Territories and Insular Possessions. For complete classification of title IX to the code, see Tables.

The Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act, referred to in subsec. (a), is Pub. L. 92–203, Dec. 18, 1971, 85 Stat. 688, which is classified generally to chapter 33 (§ 1601 et seq.) of this title. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Short Title note set out under section 1601 of this title and Tables.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 10 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1985–2021 · leading case: Ogle v. Salamatof Native Ass'n, Inc., 906 F. Supp. 1321 (D. Alaska 1995).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Ogle v. Salamatof Native Ass'n, Inc., 906 F. Supp. 1321 (D. Alaska 1995). · cites it 5× “1 Salamatof seeks dismissal pursuant to 43 U.S.C. § 1632 (b). Docket Nos. 15 & 21.”

Lee v. United States, 629 F. Supp. 721 (D. Alaska 1985). · cites it 2× “The plaintiffs may contend that their actions raise timely section 22(b) claims based on ANCSA’s limitations provision for challenges to decisions made by the Secretary, 43 U.S.C. § 1632 (a) (1982). Section 1632(a) provides that: "a decision of the Secretary under .”

Stratman v. Leisnoi, Inc., 545 F.3d 1161 (9th Cir. 2008). “In his reply brief, Stratman contends that the two-year statute of limitations added to ANCSA by § 902 of ANILCA, codified at 43 U.S.C. § 1632 , indicates that Congress left the door open to challenges of the Secretary’s eligibility determinations under ANCSA.”

Alaska v. Babbitt, 75 F.3d 449 (9th Cir. 1995). · cites it 2× “§ 2409a (QTA); and 43 U.S.C. § 1632 (a) (Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (“ANILCA”)).”

Alaska v. Babbitt, 67 F.3d 864 (9th Cir. 1995). · cites it 2× “§ 2409a (QTA); and 43 U.S.C. § 1632 (a) (Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (“ANILCA”)).”

Gwitchyaa Zhee Corp. v. Alexander (D. Alaska 2019). · cites it 2× “43 U.S.C. § 1632 (b) provides: Decisions made by a Village Corporation to reconvey land under section 14(c) of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act [43 -23- U.”

Gwitchyaa Zhee Corp. v. Alexander (D. Alaska 2019). · cites it 2× “If the Secretary is not equitably estopped from asserting a statute of limitations defense, which he is not, then the Secretary argues that the Alexanders’ claims are all subject to the two-year statute of limitations in 43 U.”

Gwitchyaa Zhee Corp. v. Clarence Alexander (9th Cir. 2021). “In any event, the Alexanders’ claim was barred by the one-year statute of limitations in 43 U.S.C. § 1632 (b). Even if the period were tolled because the 2008 notice was inadequate, the limitations period has still expired.”

Gwitchyaa Zhee Corp. v. Alexander (D. Alaska 2021). “6 In their first counterclaim, defendants sought a declaration that GZ Corporation’s § 14(c) processes and procedures were, among other things, unconstitutional because they violated defendants’ due process rights.”

Stratman v. Leisnoi Inc (9th Cir. 2008). “531 (1987), that “ANILCA’s primary pur- 3 In his reply brief, Stratman contends that the two-year statute of limita- tions added to ANCSA by § 902 of ANILCA, codified at 43 U.S.C. § 1632 , indicates that Congress left the door open to challenges of the Sec- retary’s eligibility…”

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.