Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
The test for the acknowledgement of aboriginal title in the United States is actual, exclusive and continuous use and occupancy for a "long time". [12] Unlike nearly all common law jurisdictions, the United States acknowledges that aboriginal title may be acquired post-sovereignty; a "long time" can mean as little as 30 years. [13]
United States v. Thompson, 941 F.2d 1074 (10th Cir. 1991); Pueblo of Santo Domingo v. Rael, Civil No. 83-1888 (D. N.M.) Aboriginal title: $23,000,000: Torres-Martinez Desert Cahiilla Indian Claims Settlement [14] Dec. 27, 2000: Torres-Martinez Desert Cahuilla Indians: United States ex rel. Torres-Martinez Band of Mission Indians v. Imperial ...
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.
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 ...
The law validated all titles in Martha's Vineyard [35] and the Island of Nantuckett and all other titles preceded by a grant from the colony. [34] Henceforth, any violator would be subject to a fine of twice the value of the land and 6 months in prison. [34] In 1719, the Mashpee's lands were exempted, and their sale was authorized in 1777. [36]
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 ...
The Narragansett land claim was one of the first litigations of aboriginal title in the United States in the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court's landmark Oneida Indian Nation of New York v. County of Oneida (1974), or Oneida I, decision. [1]
United States, the Supreme Court recognized that the Natives' "right of occupancy is considered as sacred as the fee simple of the whites." Nevertheless, the Tee-Hit-Ton court falsely attributed to McIntosh the notion that the right of occupancy—aboriginal title itself—did not exist until the United States acquiesced to give it to Natives. [3]