Amendments to 292.10

1. Koi Nation of N. Cal. v. U.S. Dep't of the Interior

   361 F. Supp. 3d 14 (D.D.C. 2019)   Cited 9 times

   • Motion for summary judgment
   3 more...

   The Koi Nation filed its Complaint asserting four claims, on August 23, 2017, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief, against DOI, as well as DOI's Secretary and Acting Assistant Secretary for Indian Affairs, in their official capacities (collectively, the "defendants"). Compl. at 1. The Koi Nation alleges, first, that it constitutes a tribe "restored to Federal recognition" under IGRA's restored lands exception, and that DOI "invalidly narrowed" the definition of "restored to Federal recognition" in promulgating 25 C.F.R. § 292.10( b) and applying this regulation to the Koi Nation. Id. ¶¶ 82–98 (Count I). The tribe next claims that 25 C.F.R. § 292.10( b) is invalid because the regulation "unlawfully diminish[es] the Koi Nation's privileges and immunities relative to other federally recognized Indian tribes," in violation of 25 U.S.C. § 5123(f), the IRA's privileges and immunities clause. Id. ¶¶ 99–109 (Count II). Even if 25 C.F.R. § 292.10( b) is valid, the Koi Nation further claims that the government's application of this regulation to the tribe violates the IRA's privileges and immunities clause by "draw[ing] an arbitrary distinction between the…

   PAGE 33
2. County of Amador v. United States Department of Interior

   136 F. Supp. 3d 1193 (E.D. Cal. 2015)   Cited 3 times

   • Motion for summary judgment
   1 more...

   Plaintiff argues that section 292.10 represents the Department's “reasonable interpretation” of Congress's intent in enacting the restored lands exception, while section 292.26(b) merely serves to evade Congress's purpose. See e.g. United States Dept. of the Treas. IRS Office of Chief Counsel Wash., D.C. v. Fed. Lab. Rel. Auth., 739 F.3d 13, 21 (D.C.Cir. Jan. 3, 2014) (holding that an agency acts arbitrarily and capriciously when it “set[s] forth two inconsistent interpretations of the very same statutory term”). Plaintiff directs the Court to portions of the section 292 rulemaking in which the Department rejected proposals that section 292.10 include tribes that were “restored” to agency action outside the Part 83 regulations. The Department's final rulemaking, describing section 292.10, stated:

   PAGE 1221
3. AGO

   94-10 (Ops. Fla. Atty. Gen. Feb. 16, 1994)

   Section 292.10, Fla. Stat. (1993).
4. AGO

   85-95 (Ops. Fla. Atty. Gen. Nov. 20, 1985)

   Section 292.10, F.S., authorizes the board of county commissioners of each county to assist war veterans and their dependents in presenting claims for and securing such compensation, hospitalization, education, loans, vocational training and other benefits or privileges to which they are or may become entitled under any federal or state law or regulation by reason of their service in the Armed Forces of the United States. Section 292.11(1), F.S., provides in pertinent part:
5. Hayes v. Otto

   2015 Ark. App. 228 (Ark. Ct. App. 2015)   Cited 1 times

   16. [Appellant's] obligation for child support for one child would be $112.00 per week based on a net weekly income of $635.00. [Appellee's] weekly child support obligation is $ 292.10 based on a net weekly income of $1,954.00. The Court computes the child support for [appellee] by referring to the child support chart and finding that [appellee] should pay $149.00 for the first $1,000.00 per week and then fifteen percent (15%) of $954.00, which is $143.10. The total of this amount is $292.10. The Court deviates from the child support chart because of [appellee's] paying into a college fund for [daughter]. The Court deviates in the amount of $91.00 per week, leaving the [appellee's] obligation to be $201.10 per week. The deviation is the exact amount as was affirmed by the Court of Appeals on October 7, 2009, and child support was calculated in the same manner.

   PAGE 3
6. In re J K Farms Inc.

   458 B.R. 636 (Bankr. D.D.C. 2011)   Cited 2 times

   1 more...

   +--------------------------------------------------------------------------+ ¦Invoice Date¦Amt. Billed by K & A¦Amt. Billed by A & B¦Difference ¦ +------------+--------------------+--------------------+-------------------¦ ¦6/24/2010 ¦$2,195.11 ¦$1,908.79 ¦$ 286.32 ¦ +------------+--------------------+--------------------+-------------------¦ ¦7/21/2010 ¦$ 622.18 ¦$ 541.03 ¦$ 81.15 ¦ +------------+--------------------+--------------------+-------------------¦ ¦8/23/2010 ¦$1,031.19 ¦$ 896.69 ¦$ 134.50 ¦ +------------+--------------------+--------------------+-------------------¦ ¦11/23/2010 ¦$ 292.10 ¦$ 254.00 ¦$ 38.10 ¦ +------------+--------------------+--------------------+-------------------¦ ¦12/13/2010 ¦$ 219.45 ¦$ 190.83 ¦$ 28.62 ¦ +------------+--------------------+--------------------+-------------------¦ ¦1/21/2011 ¦$1,436.53 ¦$1,249.16 ¦$ 187.37 ¦ +------------+--------------------+--------------------+-------------------¦ ¦2/22/2011 ¦$1,282.35 ¦$1,115.09 ¦$ 167.26 ¦ +------------+--------------------+--------------------+-------------------¦ ¦4/20/2011 ¦$ 596.45 ¦$518.65 ¦$ 77.80 ¦ +------------+--------------------+--------------------+-------------------…

   PAGE 640
7. No Casino in Plymouth v. Jewell

   136 F. Supp. 3d 1166 (E.D. Cal. 2015)   Cited 1 times

   • Motion for summary judgment

   Sections 292.7 (“What must be demonstrated to meet the ‘restored lands' exception”?) and 292.10 (“How does a tribe qualify as having been restored to Federal recognition?”) provide criteria by which the restored lands exception can be met.

   PAGE 1172
8. Rolland v. Romney

   292 F. Supp. 2d 268 (D. Mass. 2003)   Cited 5 times

   150 $160.00 $24,000 Boundy 1570.05 75 393 $75.00 $29,475 Engel 277.95 60 111 $205.00 $22,755 Laski 292.10 35 190 $275.00 $52,250 Belin 145.50 60 58 $257.50 $14,935 Hatrick 597.95 60 239 $120.00 $28,680 McLaughlin

9. Cnty. of Amador v. U.S. Dep't of the Interior

   872 F.3d 1012 (9th Cir. 2017)   Cited 13 times

   • Motion for summary judgment

   In 2008, Interior promulgated regulations implementing IGRA's provisions governing gaming on lands acquired after the statute went into effect. Gaming on Trust Lands Acquired After October 17, 1988, 73 Fed. Reg. 29,354 -01 (May 20, 2008). The regulations limit the "restored tribe" exception to those tribes that have been restored to recognition through (1) an act of Congress, (2) the Part 83 process, or (3) a federal court order. 25 C.F.R. § 292.10. In other words, the restored tribe exception, as interpreted by Interior, does not apply to tribes—such as the Ione Band—that were administratively restored outside the Part 83 process either before or after that process was put into place in 1978. In the explanation of its final rules, Interior expressed its "belie[f] that in 1988 Congress did not intend to include within the restored tribe exception [any] pre-1979 ad hoc determination [s]." Gaming on Trust Lands Acquired After October 17, 1988, 73 Fed. Reg. at 29,363. Interior relied, in part, on the fact that the Tribe List Act had not listed non-Part-83 administrative determinations as a possible route to recognition. Id.

   PAGE 1029
10. United Serv. v. Hartford A. I

    433 S.W.2d 850 (Tenn. 1968)   Cited 2 times

    The "other insurance" provisions invalidated in our opinion were those which undertook to reduce the particular insurer's coverage of the insured because of the existence of other liability coverage of the insured. There is nothing in the opinion to indicate we intended to invalidate an endorsement fixing the amount of coverage available, except to this extent. In fact, the amount of coverage by the insurer, which was sought to be reduced by the invalid "other insurance" provision was not discussed, but was assumed to be the amount fixed by the policies and valid endorsements; this assumption being based on the universal rule recognizing the validity of endorsements or riders fixing, in the first instance, the coverage afforded. Brown v. Tenn. Auto Insurance Co., 192 Tenn. 60, 237 S.W.2d 553; Blashfield's Automobile Law and Practice, 3rd ed., Vol. 7, Sec. 292.10, p. 229, and Couch on Insurance, 2d, Vol. 1, Sec. 4:24 to 4:31, beginning on p. 180.

    PAGE 171