City of Roseville v. Norton, Gale A.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• explaining that the term \restored land\ in IGRA's restored lands exception could mean \to 'bring [it] back to an original state' \ or alternatively \encompass[ ] the concept of ... restitution for past wrongs\
• interpreting IGRA's \restored lands\ exception and applying the Indian canon of construction, \were there any remaining doubt\ about Congress's intent
• adopting broad interpretation 29 of restored-lands exception, but declining to specifically address “its application to Indian lands not acquired pursuant to a restoration act”
• rejecting plaintiff’s characterization of the provisions of § 2719(a) as “laws disfavoring Indians” in finding that the plaintiff’s “continue to overlook the role that IGRA’s exceptions in § [2719(b)] play in the statutory scheme”
• rejecting plaintiff’s characterization of the provisions of § 2719(a) as “laws disfavoring Indians” in finding that the plaintiff’s “continue to overlook the role that IGRA’s exceptions in § [2719(b)] play in the statutory scheme”
• applying the Indian canon of construction, but first reviewing IGRA's language, structure, legislative history, and purpose to determine whether certain land taken into trust unambiguously qualified as the \restoration of lands\ for purposes of IGRA's restored lands exception

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).