Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Seminole Tribe of Indians of Florida v. Florida, No. 78-cv-6116 (S.D. Fla.) Water rights None: Puyallup Tribe of Indians Settlement Act of 1989 [8] June 21, 1989: Puyallup: Excludes land from settlement in: Puyallup Tribe of Indians v. Port of Tacoma, 717 F.2d 1251 (9th Cir. 1983) Aboriginal title: $162,000,000: Seneca Nation (New York) Land ...
Cobell v. Salazar (previously Cobell v.Kempthorne and Cobell v.Norton and Cobell v.Babbitt) is a class-action lawsuit brought by Elouise Cobell and other Native American representatives in 1996 against two departments of the United States government: the Department of Interior and the Department of the Treasury for mismanagement of Indian trust funds.
In 1996 and 1998, the Interior Department, under Secretary Bruce Babbitt, approved the tribe's request to put 165 new acres (0.67 km 2) and 146 new acres (0.59 km 2), respectively, into trust. [61] The Supreme Court's decision in Carcieri v. Salazar (2009) prevents any further such transfers. [62]
Old-money estates often had separate living quarters for household staff or “the help,” as they would call them. Over time, the decline of live-in servants (major barf) and a growing ...
Total settlement: $60 million. Deadline to file claim: May 18, 2023. Requirements: Must have been an unlimited data customer between Oct. 1, 2011 and June 30, 2015.
Old money is "the inherited wealth of established upper-class families (i.e. gentry, patriciate)" or "a person, family, or lineage possessing inherited wealth". [1] It is a social class of the rich who have been able to maintain their wealth over multiple generations, often referring to perceived members of the de facto aristocracy in societies that historically lack an officially established ...
Get AOL Mail for FREE! Manage your email like never before with travel, photo & document views. Personalize your inbox with themes & tabs. You've Got Mail!
United States v. Sioux Nation of Indians, 448 U.S. 371 (1980), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that: 1) the enactment by Congress of a law allowing the Sioux Nation to pursue a claim against the United States that had been previously adjudicated did not violate the doctrine of separation of powers; and 2) the taking of property that was set aside for the use of ...