Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
The United States was the first jurisdiction to acknowledge the common law doctrine of aboriginal title (also known as "original Indian title" or "Indian right of occupancy"). Native American tribes and nations establish aboriginal title by actual, continuous, and exclusive use and occupancy for a "long time."
In several instances, these settlements ended live claims of aboriginal title in the United States. The first two—the Rhode Island Claims Settlement Act and the Maine Indian Claims Settlement Act—extinguished all aboriginal title in Rhode Island and Maine, respectively, following initial court rulings in the tribes' favor.
Aboriginal title is also referred to as indigenous title, native title (in Australia), original Indian title (in the United States), and customary title (in New Zealand). Aboriginal title jurisprudence is related to indigenous rights , influencing and influenced by non-land issues, such as whether the government owes a fiduciary duty to ...
Oneida Indian Nation of New York v. County of Oneida, 414 U.S. 661 (1974), is a landmark decision by the United States Supreme Court concerning aboriginal title in the United States. The original suit in this matter was the first modern-day Native American land claim litigated in the federal court system rather than before the Indian Claims ...
County of Oneida v. Oneida Indian Nation of New York State, 470 U.S. 226 (1985), was a landmark United States Supreme Court case concerning aboriginal title in the United States. The case, sometimes referred to as Oneida II, was "the first Indian land claim case won on the basis of the Nonintercourse Act." [1]
United States and Native American treaties (4 C, 117 P) Pages in category "Aboriginal title in the United States" The following 68 pages are in this category, out of 68 total.
The fifth and final season of “Stranger Things” will debut in 2025, Netflix announced on Wednesday. To celebrate Nov. 6, 1983, a.k.a. “Stranger Things Day” — the day Will Byers (Noah ...
First, the court rejected the state's argument that "aboriginal title alone does not mean a title having the protection of the Non-Intercourse Act"; the court held just the opposite. [42] Next, the court held that it was irrelevant that the tribe was incorporated under state law and that the tribe was not federally recognized. [ 43 ]